PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading Read. To be read a Second time on Tuesday 15 March.

Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Wales-Merseyside Links

Ian Lucas: What steps he is taking to improve transport links between Wales and Merseyside.

Tony McNulty: A scheme to improve the cross-border route between the M56 and Deeside Park is in our targeted programme of road improvements. Work is planned to start in 2006–07.
	There is scope for services on the Wrexham to Bidston railway line to improve the use of community rail principles now that the Strategic Rail Authority has included it in its community rail development strategy.

Ian Lucas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. The economy of north-east Wales is prospering at the moment, but that is bringing with it much congestion, particularly on the roads. Will he meet the Transport Minister of the National Assembly for Wales as soon as possible to discuss the electrification of the Wrexham to Bidston line—a project that could take forward the general principles of shifting people from the roads to rail, improve access to Merseyside from north Wales and ensure that individuals travel to work by train, rather than in their cars, to areas such as the Deeside industrial estate?

Tony McNulty: I am certainly more than happy to meet our Welsh colleague. My hon. Friend will know that a study is being commissioned by a consortium of north Wales local authorities—the Taith consortium—and Merseytravel to consider the electrification of all or part of that line. I am more than happy to meet the Welsh Minister to discuss that, as well as other broad improvements to link north Wales and Merseyside.

Mike Hall: My hon. Friend is aware that one of the ways that he could improve rail links between north Wales and Merseyside would be to re-signal and dual the Halton curve, thus providing a link directly from north Wales to Merseyside, a link to the Allerton interchange and the Mersey light railway and access to the Lake district. May I press him to say something positive about that, please?

Tony McNulty: I met my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) to discuss that specific issue. I can confirm that the SRA is not proceeding with any closure process for the Halton curve. My hon. Friend will know that, although some work is planned for the Crewe-Weaver-Ditton section of the west coast main line route this year, the need to determine the curve's future is likely to rest, as he suggests, with the re-signalling work that needs to be done, currently in 2010. I certainly assure him that, at some stage between now and 2010, we will resolve the future of the Halton curve.

Robert Wareing: Can my hon. Friend tell the House what assistance, including financial assistance, will be given to the proposed new Mersey road crossing between Widnes and Runcorn? That crossing would do a tremendous amount to relieve the congestion between Liverpool and the other side of the River Mersey.

Tony McNulty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. There has been extensive talk on this matter between Halton borough council and the Department. A lot of work has been done. We have most, if not all, the information that we need to move towards a decision, and I have assured those at Halton that we will make a decision at the earliest possible opportunity.

Rail Passengers

Bob Spink: What assessment he has made of the maximum length of time passengers on main line trains should be expected to stand.

Alistair Darling: Train operators are required by their franchise agreements to ensure that, under normal circumstances, no passenger should need to stand where the journey lasts more than 20 minutes. For journeys of less than 20 minutes, it has always been understood that some passengers will stand, especially at peak times.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that clarification. The Southend-on-Sea Railway Travellers' Association believes that there are now fewer coaches and fewer seats on the c2c line than at any time over the past 50 years. Clearly, to stop standing during long journeys, we need more coaches for the c2c line. Will he support my fight to get the five units that were transferred from the c2c line to Great Eastern returned to the c2c line, where they should be used to reduce overcrowding and standing? And while I am here, may I ask for a new railway station for Canvey and its new third road?

Alistair Darling: On the first point, yes, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the intention is to return the railway carriages that were deployed elsewhere during this year. They will certainly be returned by the end of the year, but, I hope, earlier than that. And while he is here, I note his call for more spending on the railways, but he will have to square that with the fact that the Conservative party's sums in relation to railways simply do not add up. It is committed to cuts that make the opening of any new railway station fanciful.

Richard Burden: Increasing capacity on trains so that passengers do not have to stand can sometimes require increasing capacity at strategically important stations so that they can accommodate longer trains. Does my right hon. Friend thus welcome plans that are being worked up for a new gateway station at Birmingham New Street and the fact that a lead consultant for that project will be announced on Thursday so that Britain's second city can have the 21st century gateway station that it deserves?

Alistair Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend that that step is welcome. Anyone who is familiar with Birmingham New Street station will realise that it needs to be improved. It is not an especially good gateway to Birmingham and the midlands, and it suffers from terrible overcrowding, which sometimes means that it must be closed. Some £250 million has been put forward by various backers in the west midlands and I hope that we can come forward with a workable and affordable plan for Birmingham New Street. I agree that the project is a useful next step to ensure that Birmingham has a station serving not only the city, but the wider west midlands area.

Tim Yeo: Is the Secretary of State aware that since the timetable changes affecting Ipswich, Manningtree and Colchester commuters were introduced last December, far more passengers than before are having to stand on trains for much longer than 20 minutes and the reliability of service is now scandalously bad? Is he further aware that the Strategic Rail Authority failed to consult the Manningtree Rail Users' Association in a timely way before making the timetable changes? Will he support my call for the Strategic Rail Authority to reinstate the old timetable forthwith and issue a warning to 'one', the train operator, that if its performance does not improve this year, it may face the sack?

Alistair Darling: I was just looking at the performance figures for 'one' throughout the whole area in which it operates. The most recent figure is 92 per cent., which is much better than it was in the past. I think that the hon. Gentleman is raising a specific constituency point and as I have said before, if he would care to write to me about that, I shall look into it. I shall also pursue the apparent failure to consult.
	The evidence thus far is that the timetable changes have, in the most part, improved reliability. For example, the reliability of South West Trains is now well up in the 90 per cent. range, which should be encouraged. However, there will inevitably be specific cases of timetable changes not working out, so if the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me, I shall look into that.

Betty Williams: My right hon. Friend will be aware that passengers travelling from north Wales to London Euston are standing for unacceptably long times. Is he aware that Meridian trains are standing idle in sidings? Will he hold discussions with the Strategic Rail Authority to try to persuade the people who make such decisions that those trains can be used by Virgin Trains, because that would make life a lot easier for passengers travelling between north Wales and London?

Alistair Darling: I shall look into the matter, but I do not think that that is right. The trains that are supposed to be in service are in service, although I am aware that there have been problems in north Wales, which I shall examine. The difficulties are partly caused by the continuing and irritating problems encountered by the new Pendolino trains on the west coast main line, which are causing disruption and an unacceptable service at the moment. The situation is caused in part by track problems and also by the unreliability of the new trains. I shall examine the specific problem that my hon. Friend raises, but I am not aware of trains that have been delivered but are not in service. That was a problem in the past, but I do not think that it is the case at the moment.

John Thurso: Being forced to stand on trains is of course a function of overcrowding and an experience all too familiar to many commuters. Is not part of the answer to introduce new services, such as that brought in by the East Sussex community rail partnership between Uckfield and London Bridge last December? It is an excellent service, but it is not being fully promoted because of a lack of funds. Why did the Government scrap their previous pledge of £312 million for rail partnerships over three years from 2003–04, because that would have helped to promote exactly such a service?

Alistair Darling: Last November, we announced an initiative to promote the community services highlighted by the hon. Gentleman, and we have provided financial backing to go with it. He is right that additional services help to reduce overcrowding, and there are now 2,000 more week-day services on Britain's railways than was the case in 1996–97. In addition to that substantial increase, nearly 2,000 new railway carriages have been introduced on the network since 1999, thus increasing capacity. We are therefore increasing the number of services and adding capacity, which is one reason why the trains now carry more passengers than at any time since the early 1950s. In addition, nearly 14,000 more spaces are available on London commuter services during the peak times in the morning and afternoon. We are therefore making changes, but I readily accept that there is still more work to be done.

Renewable Fuels

Colin Challen: What progress his Department has made in developing renewable energy-based road transport.

Paul Flynn: What proposals he has to increase the use of environmentally-friendly transport fuels.

Alistair Darling: The Government's main support for environmentally friendly transport fuels has to date been through fuel duty incentives, but we are also carrying out a feasibility study into the possibility of requiring suppliers of road transport fuels to sell a given percentage of renewable fuels.

Colin Challen: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Yesterday, the Government published their sustainable development strategy, "Securing the Future", which reminds us that they have set a target for 2012, when 10 per cent. of all new cars that are sold should be low-carbon vehicles. The Government intend to
	"take this forward with the intention that 10 per cent. of all its vehicles will be low carbon by 2012".
	Could that target be reviewed very soon, because the UK has one of the largest liquefied petroleum gas filling station networks in Europe, and with a complete renewal of our fleet in the next seven years we could set a higher target than 10 per cent. and follow the Prime Minister's words in the foreword—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will leave those words until later.

Alistair Darling: I am sure that we all know the words off by heart, Mr. Speaker.
	My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of making sure that we have as many low-carbon cars, lorries and vans on the roads as possible. The 10 per cent. target was set three or four years ago. Although about 3 per cent. of cars on the roads are comparatively low-carbon, very few produce less than 100 g of carbon per kilometre. We are confident that, in the next two to three years, new technology will increase their usage. Through a variety of means, including incentives such as fuel duty and so on, the Government have encouraged the industry to produce more fuel-efficient cars. LPG is available, but cars using biofuels and conventional fuels will also become more efficient. We want to push that forward, but of course we will keep the targets under review. Targets must be stretching and demanding, but they must also be realistic.

Paul Flynn: The targets are commendable, but they are not good enough. Within five years, transport will be the main source of greenhouse gas emissions and we hear almost daily warnings from scientists about the dangers of global warming. The more eminent and knowledgeable the scientist, the more terrified they are about that prospect. Is not true that we now face a future in which our planet may not be habitable for our grandchildren?

Alistair Darling: No, I do not think that that is right, and neither is what my hon. Friend said about transport producing the most emissions in a few years' time—it produces about 20 per cent. at the moment. As I recollect, a large of proportion of emissions come from domestic activity as well as from industry. However, he is right that the Government have a responsibility to do everything that they can to encourage the use of low-carbon cars, greater fuel efficiency and energy generation for railways, where there has been a 20 per cent. improvement in the past 10 years. We have made it clear that we want to develop such initiatives for aviation during our European Union presidency. We are making progress—cars are much cleaner and more efficient than they were 10 or 20 years ago—but of course we need to do much more. However, we must be realistic about what can be done, and must avoid causing undue and unjustifiable concern.

Sydney Chapman: In July last year, the Government set themselves the target of 0.3 per cent. biofuels as part of the total automotive fuel market. As it is now 2005, will the Secretary of State confirm that sales would have to increase sixfold to meet that target? Does he see a likelihood of that happening in the remaining nine months of the year?

Alistair Darling: Sales are increasing, and the Government have announced a 20 per cent. reduction in fuel duty to encourage biofuels. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that two factories producing biofuels will come on stream this year, one in Motherwell and one on Teesside. As I told the House a few moments ago, it is encouraging that after a slow start, there are many reasons to believe that the Government's policy of additional fuel duty incentives and encouragement to the industry will bear fruit. We are all united in wanting to see progress as quickly as possible so that we can reduce emissions from cars and lorries as much as we can.

Greg Knight: Does the Secretary of State realise that a greater use of environmentally friendly fuels will have minimal impact so long as the Government persist in supporting anti-car policies? Does he accept that the use of green fuels would have a far bigger impact if combined with effective congestion-busting policies, such as properly phased traffic lights, no more speed humps, and the suspension, where appropriate, of bus lanes during the rush hour—a policy successfully introduced by Conservatives in Birmingham?

Alistair Darling: It is probably fair to say that transport policy in Birmingham is in a state of flux. The local bus company, which spent rather a lot of money buying buses in anticipation of being able to use the bus lanes, is now being told that it cannot use the bus lanes and is in some difficulty. If we want to encourage people to use public transport rather than their cars, I would not have thought that what the Conservatives are doing in Birmingham is the best advertisement. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned speed bumps. I wonder whether he listened to the performance of his boss on the "Today" programme this morning. He had proposed an amendment to the effect that all speed bumps would have to be taken out within two years, but when he was challenged by the "Today" presenter, Mr. Stourton, he said, "Well, no, I didn't actually mean that. It was just a probing amendment." The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) tabled an amendment, then ran away from it as fast as he could. That is the nonsense of the Conservative party policy on transport.

David Clelland: Is my right hon. Friend aware how welcome it is that a British Government have finally woken up, 50 years after its invention in this country, to the important role—[Interruption]—that linear motor can play in the provision of fast, efficient, environmentally friendly inter-city transport? Can we look forward to early indications that serious consideration is being given to this mode of transport, known elsewhere as Maglev, being introduced in the UK?

Alistair Darling: I apologise to my hon. Friend—just as he was making the most telling point in his argument, somebody's mobile phone went off, so I may have missed what he was trying to say. If he was referring to Maglev—magnetic levitation—we obviously need to consider that technology, although there is currently only one example of a Maglev train running any distance—that is, 30 km in China. The sort of distances that we are contemplating, though not great by comparison with distances in China, are considerably longer. Now that we have fixed many of the problems that affected the performance of the railways in the past, as a Government we need to consider what additional capacity will be necessary in the future and look at the possibilities that might be presented by high-speed rail links. However, I should tell my hon. Friend that Maglev is only one of a number of possibilities, and it would be quite wrong to suggest that we are committed to that particular course of action, as some people outside have sought to do. We are examining a variety of options. What is important is that we look ahead and plan for the future.

Patrick McLoughlin: What has happened to the commitment made by the Secretary of State's boss, the Deputy Prime Minister, that there would be fewer car journeys in Britain by the end of the Labour Government?

Alistair Darling: One of the reasons that there are more journeys and more people travelling is that our economy has been growing in each successive year and each successive quarter since 1997. That is reflected not just in road transport, but in the fact that the railways carried a billion passengers last year—more than at any time since the early 1950s—and more people are flying, because we have a strong, successful economy and people are better off and more prosperous than they ever were under the Conservative Government or would be if the Conservatives ever returned to office. At the same time, because of that growing prosperity, we are able to put more money into transport. We have doubled transport spending, which the Conservatives were never able to do.

Integrated Kent Franchise

Ann Widdecombe: What assessment he has made of the impact on railway users in Kent of the specification by the Strategic Rail Authority for the integrated Kent franchise.

Tony McNulty: The service pattern that will be introduced in 2009 will improve the speed, reliability and overall capacity of the network in Kent. There will be a 10 per cent. increase in the number of services arriving in London in the morning peak, once the new service pattern is introduced. The franchise specification takes into account feedback from a range of consultations held from February to April 2004, as a result of which several changes were made to the proposals.

Ann Widdecombe: Is the Minister aware that my constituents do not recognise that rosy picture? The reality of the SRA specification will be a reduced number of carriages in peak hours, which will mean more commuters standing for longer, a reduced number of services from Staplehurst to Cannon Street, regardless of the fact that 65 per cent. of early morning commuters want to go to Cannon Street, and a reduction in peak-time services from Barming, East Farleigh and Yalding. All those changes are based on a crazy methodology that assesses usage by ticket collection, even when no tickets are collected.

Tony McNulty: I am aware of those concerns. I know that the right hon. Lady had great fun at the Staplehurst rail forum meeting on 31 January this year, which has already resulted in 36 letters to me, and I am sure that others are on the way. People have raised their concerns about services from Staplehurst and on the Maidstone East line. During the morning peak, the specification for Maidstone East is 10 trains to Victoria and one to Blackfriars, compared with the current configuration of seven and two, which is an overall increase of two trains. The right hon. Lady and others have raised concerns about the Maidstone East line, and the SRA will review the split of trains between Blackfriars and Victoria and let people know the outcome.
	Marden will receive an extra four trains during the morning peak, and the configuration will be changed with more trains to Charing Cross and fewer to Cannon Street, although the SRA has assured me that it will see whether the split between Cannon Street and Charing Cross can be altered. The off-peak specification is for two trains an hour compared with the current three, and the reduction in frequency reflects current and projected loading.
	Those concerns are well made, and I shall respond in full to the 36 letters—I assume that more will arrive—in due course, but the SRA will examine the configuration of the London termini.

Clive Efford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for indicating that he is prepared to listen to representations on the outcome of the consultation, which was rendered entirely false when the recent document was published. I was consulted directly by the former chair of the SRA on six off-peak trains per hour, two of which would have gone to Victoria. At that time, there was no suggestion that the Victoria service would be cut, yet that is exactly what has happened. During the consultation, my constituents and I had no opportunity to comment on that service being cut, so I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend is prepared to listen.
	Will my hon. Friend also consult disabled people, who will find it difficult to use those services?

Tony McNulty: The SRA fully consults the disabled community as well as others.
	My hon. Friend is referring to the tail end of consultation. The notion that the SRA's consultation on the IKF was anything other than lengthy and detailed is not fair, but if he has ongoing concerns on behalf of his constituents, I shall certainly examine them and pass them on to the SRA.

John Horam: Is the Minister aware that there is real concern that the SRA's views and plans will cause further overcrowding on commuter lines into London, particularly at stations such as Petts Wood, where rush hour services will be reduced significantly? Will he therefore confirm the view expressed by the SRA to the three Bromley MPs—I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in his place—that those proposals are not set in concrete and that the SRA will listen to legitimate concerns and show some flexibility?

Tony McNulty: As I said to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) as regards services to Staplehurst and on the Maidstone lines, the SRA has already given that indication and will keep the situation under review with a good deal of flexibility. We need to bed in the new franchise at the earliest opportunity and to marry the channel tunnel rail link domestic services with the existing services on the Kent line, but there will of course be that flexibility.

Railways (Corporate Responsibility)

David Heathcoat-Amory: When he last discussed corporate responsibility with the chairman of the Office of Rail Regulation.

Alistair Darling: I have regular meetings with the chairman of the Office of Rail Regulation. We have discussed corporate responsibility, and if the right hon. Gentleman would care to let me know which aspect he has in mind, I would be happy to help him further.

David Heathcoat-Amory: As I understand it, the Government want to increase corporate responsibility and the liability of company directors, who may in future be additionally liable for corporate manslaughter charges if their companies cause accidents or injury. My question is this: are Ministers and the Government also to be made liable for their acts or omissions which may cause accidents on the railways, or are the Government planning one set of rules for the private sector while protecting themselves against similar liabilities?

Alistair Darling: I hope that the Government will present their proposals on corporate manslaughter in the not-too-distant future. In relation to the Office of Rail Regulation, the right hon. Gentleman may be aware that I have had discussions with the chairman of the board. I want to ensure that the rail regulator and his board can carry out their functions without fear of litigation so that they can ensure that we have a safe and reliable railway, but at the same time I accept that, where appropriate, someone who is responsible for certain activities should face up to that. In the meantime, we have made it clear that the Government will indemnify the rail regulator and the board, and a minute to that effect has been laid before the House.

Tim Yeo: On corporate responsibility, we should bear in mind that a majority of Network Rail members recently voted to improve its accountability by establishing a members' council to scrutinise this business, whose operations remain largely shrouded in secrecy and which may well be spending considerable sums of taxpayers' money inefficiently. Will the Secretary of State back that call; and if not, is it because he is afraid of what it might reveal?

Alistair Darling: Not really, no. I am aware of the move by several members of Network Rail to establish greater scrutiny. I welcome and support that, because the more questions that can be asked of the company, the better its management will be. Nevertheless, since it took over from Railtrack—the Conservatives are probably the only group of people left in this country who support that company—it has become much more efficient and accountable, and is running its responsibilities far better than Railtrack ever did. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asks where is the evidence for that. Let me give him one example. When Railtrack was around, it told us that it could do up the west coast main line for £2.5 billion—that was the back-of-the-envelope calculation that it came up with. By the time that it finally stopped trading, the cost had risen to £13.5 billion for the same amount of work. Now, the final cost is likely to be about half that—about £7 billion—as a result of the increased efficiencies and improvements brought about by Network Rail. So yes, I back what is happening in Network Rail because it is a much better way of running the railway than Railtrack ever was.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Jim Cunningham to ask Question 10.

Robert Wareing: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot have two bites at the cherry. He stood earlier and I called him, so his question is now unstarred. That is the rule of the House.

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) was not called because he was called during a previous question. That is the rule of the House.

Motor-Cycle Accidents (Coventry)

Jim Cunningham: How many accidents involving motor-cycles took place in Coventry in each year since 1997.

David Jamieson: In 1997, there were 81 accidents in Coventry involving at least one motor-cycle. The figures for subsequent years are as follows: in 1998, there were 85; in 1999, there were 80; in 2000, there were 81; in 2001, there were 80; in 2002, there were 88; and in 2003, there were 99. Figures for 2004 are not yet available.

Jim Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. How many deaths resulted from those accidents?

David Jamieson: There were a total of eight deaths in that period. We are greatly concerned about the number of deaths of motor cyclists and the Government are doing a great deal to reduce it. My hon. Friend probably knows that, a couple of weeks ago, we launched the motor cycle strategy, which was welcomed by the motor cycle community as a major contribution—indeed, the first such contribution that a Government have made—towards recognising motor cyclists' needs.

David Kidney: If the national statistics apply to Coventry generally, will my hon. Friend confirm that, although motor cyclists constitute one in 100 road users, one in five motor cyclists suffers death and serious injuries? Is not that a shocking statistic? What will the new motor cycling strategy mean in terms of reducing those deaths and injuries?

David Jamieson: Those figures are correct and a concern to us, given that motor cycling is a good alternative form of travel, especially for people on limited or low incomes.
	In the hazard perception test, we have introduced a section to deal with looking after motor cyclists and vulnerable road users. The advisory group on motor cycling, which we set up five years ago, has consistently given the Government good advice, which has resulted in a strategy with 44 different aims, to be fulfilled over a period of time.
	The publicity material that we are producing for posters and magazines and on television will raise issues to do with motor cyclists, especially making motorists aware of each other's needs on the roads. It is an important matter—motor cycling should be part of the mainstream transport system in this country but we must make it safer.

East Coast Main Line

Hugh Bayley: What representations the Department has received from members of the public about the east coast main line rail franchise.

Alistair Darling: My Department has received a substantial number of representations from members of the public regarding the InterCity east coast franchise.

Hugh Bayley: There is no doubt that GNER has performed substantially better than any other train operating company. The fact that 20,000 members of the public have written to support its bid is testimony to that. Given that GNER's current franchise ends in only a few weeks, does my right hon. Friend agree that the current uncertainty should be ended as soon as possible? Will he make an announcement about the outcome of the franchise competition shortly?

Alistair Darling: I hope to make an announcement about the franchise shortly.

Anne McIntosh: I concur with the comments of the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley). The vast majority of constituents who have written to me—I have forwarded their letters to the Secretary of State—are in favour of GNER's bid.
	The franchise should not be awarded only on value for money but on customer service. Will the Secretary of State respond to a newspaper report that GNER is being asked to pay £100 million to the Department? On what basis would that happen? Should not the money go towards improving an already excellent service?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Lady is no doubt aware that the railways work on the basis that operators are invited to bid for franchises. At some point, we must get money from at least some of the train companies that operate the franchises because we pay large sums to other operators that are not in such a happy position. I find it odd that a Conservative Member advocates that we should not accept money from people who are taking on a franchise and running trains. If she did not accept such money, she would have to confront the problem of making up the difference.
	I am well aware of the representations about GNER and people's feelings about it. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for City of York a few moments ago, I expect to be in a position to make an announcement on the franchise in the near future.

Trust Ports

Jim Knight: If he will make a statement on the future of trust ports.

David Jamieson: Following publication of our review of trust ports, "Modernising Trust Ports—A Guide to Good Governance", trust ports have taken active steps to modernise their legislation and to render themselves more open and accountable to their stakeholders. The Government welcome the steps taken so far and will encourage continued progress.

Jim Knight: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The Government's attempt to prevent the privatisation of the trust port at Poole has been formally objected to by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on behalf of the official Opposition. The privatisation of Poole would be a disaster for the harbour, 75 per cent. of which is in my constituency, because the surpluses that are currently spent safeguarding the interests of walkers, sailors, anglers and fishermen would go to shareholders. Will the Minister promise to continue to resist the privatisation of Poole?

David Jamieson: I can offer my hon. Friend a total assurance on that. Seven of the ports involved are currently pursuing harbour revision orders, but, sadly, six of them have been objected to by the hon. Member for Christchurch. That procedure is preventing ports throughout the country from planning for the future investment that they want to make. The difference between us and the Conservatives is that we want to modernise the ports, while they want to privatise them.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the Minister agree that the future of the trust ports is inextricably linked to the health of the British shipping industry? In that regard, does he share my concern—and the concern expressed by the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers, NUMAST—that the tonnage tax has not delivered much of the hoped for security of employment and training benefits? Now that the first cadets trained under the tonnage tax are qualifying, what steps will the Government take—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not even call that question. I call Mr. Chope.

Christopher Chope: To return to the issue that we were discussing, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the former trust ports that have been sold are now thriving in the private sector? Why will he not support our policy of allowing the port of Dover to be sold, with the proceeds of the sale being used for vital transport infrastructure improvements? That policy was announced yesterday to acclaim in the port of Dover.

David Jamieson: It would be more helpful if the hon. Gentleman would tell us why he is objecting to the harbour revision orders relating to six of the trust ports, which means that they cannot now go ahead with their investment plans. I believe that £6 million of investment is now being held up in Poole by the hon. Gentleman's objection. I am sure that the proposed privatisation of Dover will come as interesting news to the people of Dover in any future election, along with the spurious promises that the hon. Gentleman made about road and rail infrastructure improvements in that area. There is a clear difference between us: we want to modernise these ports and to see them thrive; the hon. Gentleman wants only to privatise them.

Speed Safety Cameras

Bob Russell: How many speed safety cameras have been removed in the past three months; and for what reasons they were removed.

David Jamieson: The latest data from the safety camera partnerships indicate that two fixed speed and seven mobile speed camera sites were removed in the quarter ending December 2004, when they were no longer required. A number of temporary cameras were also removed when motorway repairs had been completed.

Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and I congratulate him on his resistance to those who wish to remove speed cameras, bearing in mind that it has been proved that speed cameras save lives and reduce the number of crashes. Will he give the House an assurance that he will put up equal resistance to the latest idiotic proposals to remove speed bumps from residential streets?

David Jamieson: The safety camera partnerships have been extremely successful in reducing casualties—[Hon. Members: "And in raising money!"] Well, Opposition Members may say that, but many Tory authorities have been assisting the police in installing such cameras to reduce deaths and injuries on the roads in their area. In response to the point raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), speed humps have also played a major part in reducing casualties, particularly on some of the side roads and minor roads in our cities. I find it quite extraordinary that the Opposition spokesman, who was on the radio this morning, should say that this vital safety measure—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not need to hear about that.

Peter Pike: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, despite the lobby against speed cameras, the average speed of vehicles in most towns that have such cameras has been reduced, as has the number of accidents? It is better to face large numbers of people protesting about being fined for driving too fast than to face just one person who has suffered the tragedy of an accident caused by speeding.

David Jamieson: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We set targets to reduce overall casualties by 40 per cent. over the 10-year period. To date, we have achieved a 26 per cent. reduction, while the number of children killed or injured in the past three years has dropped by 40 per cent. The desire of Conservative Members to remove cameras is inexplicable when all the evidence provided to us, even by some Conservative councillors, suggests that they are playing a major part in reducing the number of casualties, in particular the number of children killed and injured on our roads.

New Roads (South-east)

Teddy Taylor: What discussions he has had with the Deputy Prime Minister about the implications for plans to build new roads of the proposed housing developments in the south-east.

Alistair Darling: Ministers in the Department work closely with our counterparts in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the transport implications of the proposed housing development in the south-east.

Teddy Taylor: As Southend-on-Sea already has a serious traffic congestion problem, is the Secretary of State aware that the council simply does not want to agree to massive new housing developments until a decision is taken on a ring road, which is desperately important, particularly for Shoeburyness? Could the Departments come together to make sure that the roads are sorted out before exciting new housing developments proceed?

Alistair Darling: We propose to spend about £3.5 billion on major transport schemes in the four growth areas. In relation to the particular ring road that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, I would be happy to arrange for him to meet my colleague the Minister of State so that the issue could be discussed further. I say that without raising his hopes unnecessarily and unjustifiably, but I take the general point that additional housing must have sufficient transport infrastructure to support it. I will arrange for him to see my colleague so that the matter can be discussed further.

Small Ports

Tony Cunningham: If he will make a statement on Government support for small ports.

David Jamieson: The Government recognise that even small ports have the potential to play a significant role in their local and regional economies. Our ports policy provides a basis for all ports to exploit opportunities for development. The Government offices and regional development agencies have a proven track record in working with ports in their regions.

Tony Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but what are the Government doing to support small ports in my constituency such as Maryport and Silloth? In particular, what support will be given to the port of Workington in the light of the recent Corus decision, which will have a significant impact on the port and the people of west Cumbria?

David Jamieson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising those issues so assiduously in the House and with me when I visited him some time ago. He will know that at Workington, more than £4 million has been earmarked for West Lakes Renaissance for investment in the port, and a feasibility study associated with that is under way. Significant funding has also been committed to the redevelopment of Barrow, Whitehaven and Maryport for the benefit of the local communities. Small ports are important to us, and the importance of Workington to my hon. Friend's constituents is recognised by the Government and the regional development agency.

Passenger/Freight Traffic (River Thames)

Simon Hughes: What plans he has for developing passenger and freight river traffic on the River Thames.

David Jamieson: The Government are keen to see the Thames used—[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] We are a little more prepared today than those on the Opposition Benches. We are keen to see the Thames used for both freight and passenger traffic. Transport for London is responsible for passenger services on the Thames, and patronage has risen by 17 per cent. since 2000–01. TFL has also safeguarded some freight wharves through the London plan process. In addition, my Department can provide grant to encourage freight on the river.

Simon Hughes: The last ones are often the best. I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, but he will be conscious that this question relates not just to the part of the Thames within Greater London but to the stretch that goes beyond London's boundaries. Does he accept that if we can put much more freight on the Thames, that is excellent news for the environment, and if we can put many more commuters and passengers on the Thames, that is excellent news for the environment and users? Will he work with the Greater London authority to make sure that, in the foreseeable future, we get more and better services not just throughout Greater London but right down the Thames estuary?

David Jamieson: I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that we will do that. We want more passengers to use the Thames. As for freight, we will shortly announce a grant that will allow about 2 million tonnes of material to be moved from Battersea by river rather than road. That will take many vehicles off the road. We will actively encourage the continuation of that policy for both passengers and freight.

CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked—

Government Advertising

Henry Bellingham: If he will make a statement on his role in the co-ordination of policy across Departments for the elimination of waste in expenditure on the advertising of Government policies.

Alan Milburn: My hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has responsibility for the Central Office of Information, whose procurement processes are designed to ensure maximum value for money. It is of course for individual Ministers, who are accountable to the House for the work of their Departments, to decide how much is spent on advertising.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that Government expenditure on advertising has risen from £40 million in 1997 to a staggering £194 million last year—an unbelievable fivefold increase—and is set to hit £260 million by 2007? Is he aware that much of that money is being spent not on advertising civil service vacancies, but on promoting Government policy and initiatives? That does nothing to improve public services. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it constitutes barely disguised party-political propaganda and an abuse of public funds?

Alan Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He is well aware that part of the advertising money is spent on recruiting members of the armed forces, nurses, teachers and police officers, while part of it is spent on important take-up campaigns. The Government spent £10 million on advertising pension credit, and 3 million pensioners have taken it up.

Anne McIntosh: It is a mess.

Alan Milburn: The hon. Lady may say that, but I understand that pensioners are gaining an average of £40 a week. I do not think that they consider it to be a mess.
	We also spent £7 million on advertising our tax credits, and 6 million hard-working families are benefiting from that today. We spent £6 million on advertising the new deal, which has helped 1 million people off benefit and into work. I know that the hon. Gentleman opposes that spending, and I suspect that that is because he opposes the programmes.

Gordon Prentice: Why are we not spending more on advertising the minimum wage? Many people in Pendle do not know that it will rise to £5.05—not a king's ransom—in October, and to £5.35 next year. Why do we not advertise that?

Alan Milburn: My hon. Friend is doing his best to advertise it, and I commend his efforts. He is right: the minimum wage is rising above £5 an hour for the first time later this year, and will rise still further next year and, I hope, in the years to come.
	As my hon. Friend will recall, there was a time when political parties were saying—I think it was said by the Government of the day—that a minimum wage, rising or otherwise, would cost 1 million jobs. Today we have a rising minimum wage and a rising number of people in work—2 million more jobs have been created—but I suppose that that is the difference between a Labour Government and a Tory Government.

Ministerial Posts

Graham Brady: What assessment he has made of the effect on public expenditure of the decision to separate his post from that of the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

Alan Milburn: I have made no such assessment. Any such costs will be published in the Cabinet Office annual report and resource accounts for 2004–05, which will of course be laid before the House.

Graham Brady: Is it not patently obvious that if the Department is to assess the cost of keeping a separate office at the end of the financial year—and we are a few weeks away from that—it must have estimated the cost by now. It is absurd for the Chancellor of the Duchy to claim otherwise. His colleague the Minister for the Cabinet Office has written to the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee to that effect—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough.

Dennis Skinner: He thought he was introducing a ten-minute Bill.

Alan Milburn: I am always grateful for my hon. Friend's advice.
	I think that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the position. The accounts will be published, and I understand that they will be more detailed than before. They will be laid before the House in due course. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, expenditure on private offices varies according to the number of Ministers in the Cabinet Office at any one time.
	If it will help the hon. Gentleman, I can give him some historical figures relating to the current Government. [Interruption.] I do not know what those other figures are yet because we are not at the end of the financial year. It is self-evident that we are not at that stage. When we are, the figures will be published and, of course, they will be given in more detail than ever before.

Tam Dalyell: Could I appeal to Ministers of State to apply their minds to the thoughtful memorandum that they have had from the distinguished retired Scottish Office civil servant Ronald Cramond and in particular his concerns about political parties not influencing the job prospects of civil servants?

Alan Milburn: I am not aware of the correspondence to which my hon. Friend refers, but I will, of course, look into it.

Matthew Taylor: In the light of the issue of the costs of his employment and office, has the Minister given any thought to how much more time he will be able to put—post possible general election, when he no longer will have his role for the Labour party—into the job of Government and to how much more cost-effective his office may then be?

Alan Milburn: I am absolutely delighted that the Liberals are making a prediction about the outcome of the general election. Well done.

Julian Lewis: It is quite obvious that the Chancellor of the Duchy would not like the country to know how much his office is costing until after the election is over, so may I try to assist him? May I advise him that, according to my reckonings, he has spent at the Dispatch Box since his appointment somewhat less than the 45 minutes for which this dodgy Government will ever be remembered? It works out at about £2,000 a minute at the Dispatch Box. Does he think that his special friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would regard his record as good value for money?

Alan Milburn: What I regard as remarkably poor value for money is the Opposition Front-Bench team. In all my time at this Dispatch Box, given my responsibilities for the co-ordination of Government policy—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman could have asked me a question about education, but I have not had a single question about it. With my responsibilities for the wider co-ordination of Government policy, he could have asked me a question about health policy, but we have not had a single health question. We have not had a single question on jobs, on child care, on pensions or on the economy. I think that I know the reason for that: the hon. Gentleman has precisely nothing to say and his party's policies would damage the economy, damage our public services and cut investment by £35 billion.

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

Civil Service (Fast Stream)

Ben Chapman: What steps he is taking to ensure that entry to the civil service fast stream is representative of society as a whole.

David Miliband: There is a wide range of initiatives in place to encourage applications from diverse groups to the fast stream, including outreach and work experience programmes. The recruitment and assessment process is constantly reviewed with a view to achieving a fast-stream graduate programme that is representative of society as a whole.

Ben Chapman: The British civil service has traditionally been one of the highest regarded in the world because we have traditionally recruited the best, rather than necessarily the representative. How does my hon. Friend intend to square that circle in the upcoming fast-stream recruitment round?

David Miliband: I think that, by opening the civil service to as wide a range of talent as possible, we can boost excellence in the civil service. [Hon. Members: "Dumbing down."] The Opposition say, "Dumbing down." That is revealing. We believe that, if we reach out to all sections of society and encourage them to apply to the civil service, we will raise standards. I would have thought that the whole House welcomed the fact that the targets for ethnic minority recruitment to the senior civil service have been met; more than 3 per cent. of the senior civil service are now from ethnic minorities. I would have thought that the whole House welcomed the fact that 700 members of ethnic minorities went on a summer experience programme in the civil service with a view to being fast-stream recruits. I would have thought that that is something that the whole House should welcome. It is something that my hon. Friend for Wirral, South has campaigned on for a long time and I think that he will be pleased with the developments that we were seeing.

Eric Forth: But will the Minister give us an absolute assurance that the sole basis on which people will be recruited to the civil service, particularly the fast stream, will be merit and ability, and nothing else?

David Miliband: The answer is yes, yes, yes. Of course entry to the civil service is based on merit. The idea that a question about opening up the civil service to the whole of society—[Interruption.] Just a minute. The idea that the policy of opening up the civil service to all sections of society should prompt questions about dumbing down says more about the Opposition than about the programmes that are in place.

Points of Order

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has just told the House—that in future it will be possible for us to question him on a range of wider issues—will you ensure that the Table Office no longer refuses questions on such issues? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would ask why Labour Members have failed to ask him such questions.

Mr. Speaker: It seems that we are extending Question Time. Those in the Table Office are Officers of the House of the highest standard. They reject questions only if they go against the rules of the House—[Interruption.] Order. I am not responsible for the Minister's reply, which is the last thing for which I want to be responsible.

Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster listed a range of subjects—education and almost every other subject on which a question could be asked. Will it be in order for us to ask him questions about any Government brief, or should we concentrate on the co-ordination of policy? What is your ruling, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a question of my ruling. The hon. Gentleman should go along to the Table Office to find out whether his questions are accepted. The Officers of the House have wide experience of such matters and will look after hon. Members.

Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you agree that as the Tory Opposition receive £4 million a year of taxpayers' money, they should be bright enough to table questions without having to beg you to tell them how to do the job they are paid to do? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I sense a general election coming up and I shall not be drawn into these matters.

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You heard the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster making a typically cheap gibe at the Opposition when he accused us of not ranging widely when questioning him. Surely, you must accept that that puts the Table Office at odds with the right hon. Gentleman. Who will win?

Mr. Speaker: What I say to the right hon. Gentleman is what I have said before. He should go along to the Table Office and let it worry about the matter.
	BILL PRESENTED
	Prevention of Terrorism (No. 2)
	Mr. William Cash presented a Bill about the Prevention of Terrorism: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March 2004, and to be printed [Bill 78].

Royal Marriages (Freedom of Religion)

Edward Leigh: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow any member of the Royal Family to marry a person of any religion or none.
	You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, of the position under the constitution, which dates back to the Act of Settlement 1701. That position is clear. If a member of the royal family—anyone in line to the succession—took it upon themselves to marry a Roman Catholic, they would automatically be excluded from the line of succession. There is no doubt about that and there is no recourse to ask permission of the monarch or anyone else. They are automatically excluded.
	That provision, which is discriminatory and applies only to Roman Catholics is wrong and should be removed from our statute law. There have been numerous attempts to remove it by, for example, my right hon. Friend Lord Forsyth in another place who intends to raise the matter again today, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and many others. I am not sure whether it has happened before, but yesterday, Cardinal O'Brien, the primate of Scotland, made a public statement as a result of my moving this Bill today. He said that the provision is clearly discriminatory and a breach of the human rights of members of the royal family, and that it should be repealed. I look to other members of the hierarchy to come out of the closet, or perhaps the sanctuary, and to move the campaign forward.
	Of course, one can ask whether such an act of discrimination is right. The answer is that it is clearly not right for any country to have in its constitution a prohibition that applies to only one religion. The French constitution forbids the wearing of religious dress in school, but that applies to all religions, which is quite different. The British prohibition applies only to Roman Catholics. For instance, Prince William, if he chose, could marry somebody who was Jewish or Muslim, or even an atheist or agnostic. He could even marry a satanist. That would be allowable. After all, the Royal Navy allows satanism, although not—apparently—animal sacrifices aboard ship. Is that acceptable?
	Is the provision logical? It is obviously illogical. For instance, Prince William would be barred from the succession if he were to marry a Roman Catholic, but if his bride became a Roman Catholic after the marriage ceremony, he could go on to become the monarch. That is ridiculous. A male member of the royal family, if he were so inclined, could choose to contract a civil partnership with a Roman Catholic man, under recent legislation.
	Out of the universe of eligible young women in Europe and around the world, the ban applies only to Roman Catholics. That infringes their human rights. Surely enough damage has been done by legislation telling members of the royal family whom they should marry. It is time to move on, let them fall in love with whoever they please and get on with it like everybody else.
	What are the objections to my modest Bill? The Prime Minister has been asked about the issue on numerous occasions. He says—he cannot say anything else—that he is against discrimination, but that he has other priorities, the issue is too complicated and the Government have better things to do. But what would happen if a young prince should meet a young Roman Catholic girl? Would we have legislation rushed through Parliament by the necessary date? That would be ridiculous when we could deal with the matter now.
	The Bill is very narrow. It is not complicated and it would not require amending or repealing vast quantities of Acts of Parliament. In pursuit of a recent Bill, the Government had to amend 57 Acts, but my Bill would require amending only three or four. The real reason the Government have not done this before is that they think that they would have to amend the Statute of Westminster and obtain the consent of the entire Commonwealth, including Australia. However, I am assured by those who advise me that that would not be necessary. My Bill would not affect the position of the monarch and therefore there would be no need to amend the Statute of Westminster.
	The argument that changing would be too difficult or complicated does not add up. I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) in his place on the Front Bench. The Government pride themselves on attacking discrimination wherever it is found, so why do they allow this discrimination to exist in the British constitution of all constitutions?

John Bercow: They're so old-fashioned.

Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend makes his point.
	The second objection is, so we are told, that the Catholic Church has a requirement that in mixed marriages—I deplore that phrase—the couple are required to bring up any children as Roman Catholics. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is true that one is expected to make an effort to try to bring up one's children as Roman Catholics in such cases, but one is not required to do so. Indeed, Prince Michael of Kent, when he married a Roman Catholic in 1978, was automatically barred from the succession, although he has chosen to raise his children as Anglicans. If Prince William or Prince Harry were to marry a Roman Catholic, there is no reason why their children should not be brought up as Anglicans.
	Personally speaking, I am happy with the established Church. I am happy that the monarch should be Supreme Governor of the Church of England. I am happy that the monarch should be in communion with the Church of England, and nothing in my Bill would affect that. Why then do we continue to have a bar placed on marriage to a Roman Catholic by a member of the royal family?
	The time for this Bill, or something like it, has now arrived. My noble Friend Lord Forsyth said, in another place, that the clause was the constitution's "grubby little secret". It perpetuates the values of 16th and 17th century Britain and religious disputes.

Eric Forth: Otherwise, it is rather good.

Edward Leigh: The measure may be rather good otherwise, as my right hon. Friend says, but it is not appropriate. It perpetuates the myth that Catholics are disloyal. I accept that there was a problem with the gunpowder plot, but surely we could be forgiven after 300 or 400 years. The time has come to get rid of this discriminatory legislation.
	I was talking to my parish priest last Sunday and he told me that the last of the Catholic Relief Acts was passed as late as 1927. I was not aware of that. Up to that date, Dominicans, Jesuits or Franciscans entering Britain had to register with the Home Office. They had some sort of control order placed on them. It is hard to believe that such measures could exist within living memory.
	We got rid of those laws, so why do we retain this "grubby little secret" on our statute book? Like everyone, Catholics have the right to live in a society that is truly non-discriminatory and which values people for what they are.
	The time has come to pass this Bill into law, and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. William Hague, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. John Burnett, Dr. Evan Harris, Mr. Francis Maude, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Jim Dobbin, Mr. Stephen Pound and Mr. John Bercow.

Royal Marriages (Freedom of Religion)

Mr. Edward Leigh accordingly presented a Bill to make provision to allow any member of the Royal Family to marry a person of any religion or none: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 April, and to be printed [Bill 79].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Road Safety Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 14
	 — 
	Tests: Approved Language Translators

'In the Road Traffic Act 1988, before section 163 insert—
	"Requirement for approved translators
	162A   Test language translators
	(1)   The Secretary of State may by regulations require that, if a person who is not fluent in the English language submits himself for a relevant test and wishes to be accompanied at the test by a translator, he may only be so accompanied if the translator is approved in accordance with regulations under this section in relation to a language in which the person is fluent.
	(2)   The regulations may make provision in relation to the approval of persons as translators and may, in particular, include provision—
	(a)   in relation to the making of applications for approval,
	(b)   for the payment in respect of applications for approval, or in connection with approvals, of fees of a prescribed amount,
	(c)   in relation to the period for which an approval is to have effect and withdrawing approval,
	(d)   authorising the imposition of conditions on an approval,
	(e)   for an appeal to lie to the Transport Tribunal against a refusal of an application for approval, the imposition of conditions on an approval or the withdrawal of approval,
	(f)   prescribing circumstances in which an approved translator may not act as such,
	(g)   as to the evidencing by persons of their status as approved translators, and
	(h)   authorising the Secretary of State to make available (with or without charge) information about approved translators.
	(3)   The following are relevant tests—
	(a)   tests of competence to drive a motor vehicle prescribed by virtue of section 89(3) of this Act or section 36(5) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988,
	(b)   examinations of ability and fitness (or continued ability and fitness) to give driving instruction for which provision is made by virtue of section 132 of this Act, and
	(c)   emergency control assessments under section 133A of this Act.".'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

David Jamieson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	Since the Bill was introduced to the House of Commons, we have been considering the legislation covering arrangements for regulating translators at driving tests, and we have concluded that we ought to remedy its deficiencies. In short, we have decided, after careful reflection, that the existing law is not clear enough in this regard.
	The new clause will provide a much improved framework for regulation of translation services at driving theory tests by introducing more robust conditions and better and more transparent checks on those who act as translators. It will also enable us to extend the scope of our current arrangements so as to assist candidates taking their practical driving test. The examination of a person's fitness and ability to give driving instruction and the emergency control assessment taken by disabled driving instructors are also covered.
	The powers will enable the Driving Standards Agency to impose conditions on approved translators in respect of their initial and ongoing approval. It will also be able to require approved translators to produce evidence of their approval to theory test invigilators and practical test examiners and charge reasonable fees for administering the approved translator arrangements. Finally, it will be able to make information available about approved translators and publish information about their language specialisms, the geographical area covered, and so on. In addition, there will be a right of appeal to the transport tribunal in respect of the DSA's decision regarding refusal to grant approval, withdrawal of approval, and the imposition of conditions.
	These improved arrangements are essentially anti-fraud measures. They will help to prevent unscrupulous persons from becoming translators in an attempt to improperly assist candidates to pass tests of competence to drive that they would otherwise have failed, thereby facilitating identity fraud. They also represent a customer service improvement. Candidates will be able to make use of approved translator services for the practical driving test and the emergency control assessment, and for examinations of fitness and ability to give driving instruction. Such services are currently restricted to the theory test.
	I hope that Members will accept the new clause.

Greg Knight: We regard this new clause as sensible and necessary, largely for the reasons outlined by the Minister. Indeed, this is perhaps the first and last time that I can say during consideration of this Bill that I wholeheartedly agree with him. As a lawyer, I am aware that the law in this area is unclear, and there may be occasions when an inappropriate person is acting as a translator, and when the temptation to commit fraud could arise. Can the Minister confirm, however, that generally speaking, the fees to be paid to the translator will be passed on to the person taking the driving test, and that where that person lodges an appeal that proves unsuccessful, the costs will follow the event? In other words, will the person appealing have to pay the costs of the appeal if it fails?
	Subject to hearing what the Minister has to say on those two points, we support the new clause.

David Jamieson: I am very pleased to hear of the right hon. Gentleman's welcome for this new clause, which will enable the DSA to charge translators for being put on the approved register and ensure that checks such as criminal record checks can be carried out on them. It will also ensure that information on translators is made publicly available by, for example, putting it on the website. On the appeals system, the standard transport tribunal arrangements that obtain in many other areas will apply. However, I will examine the question of who would pay in the event of an unsuccessful appeal and write to the right hon. Gentleman on that point. I accept his welcome for this useful little new clause, and I hope that it will become part of the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Funding of Speed Awareness and Driver Improvement Course

'(1)   The Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 (c. 3) is amended as follows.
	(2)   In section 38 (Unified power for Secretary of State to fund speed cameras etc.) after subsection (1)(a) insert—
	"(aa)   such educational or training programmes undertaken by that authority as may support the activities in (a),".'. —[Mr. Chope.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Christopher Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 2—Incentives for undertaking driver improvement and speed awareness courses—
	'If a person who has at least seven and no more than eleven penalty points endorsed on his driving licence subsequently successfully completes a driver improvement course or speed awareness course authorised by the Secretary of State, he shall be entitled to have the number of penalty points endorsed on his licence reduced by three.'.
	New clause 3—Maximum penalty for dangerous driving—
	'In Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (Prosecution and punishment of offences: offences under the Traffic Acts), in the entry relating to section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (dangerous driving) in Column (4) (punishment) for "2 years" substitute "5 years".'.
	New clause 4—Causing death by driving whilst unlicensed—
	'If a person causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising him to drive a motor vehicle of that class he is guilty of an offence.'.
	New clause 6—Causing death by driving whilst disqualified—
	'If a person causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place while disqualified from driving by order of a court he is guilty of an offence.'.
	New clause 7—Speed limit on rural roads—
	'(1)   A maximum speed limit may be designated by a relevant authority for all rural roads in an area.
	(2)   Where the area is the whole of England, the relevant authority—
	(a)   is the Secretary of State;
	(b)   may designate, amend or remove a speed limit by order subject to the negative resolution procedure.
	(3)   Where the area is that of a highway authority, the relevant authority—
	(a)   is the highway authority;
	(b)   may designate, amend or remove a speed limit by making a traffic order.
	(4)   Where the area is that of a principal authority which is not a highway authority, the relevant authority—
	(a)   is the highway authority whose area includes the area;
	(b)   may designate, amend or remove a speed limit by making a traffic order.
	(5)   Notwithstanding the provision of other enactments no sign or other device shall be required for an order made under subsection (2) to have effect.
	(6)   Notwithstanding the provisions of other enactments no sign or other device shall be required for an order made under subsection (3) or (4) to have effect save one on each highway entering the area which shall be of a design and dimensions determined by regulation made by the Secretary of State.
	(7)   For the purpose of this section, a "rural road" is a highway to which all of the following conditions apply—
	(a)   no speed limit other than the national speed limit applies;
	(b)   street lighting is not provided; and
	(c)   there are no road markings in the centre of the road.
	(8)   Where both the Secretary of State and a highway authority have set a speed limit under this section, the lower limit shall have effect.'.
	New clause 12—Speed limits for vehicles of certain classes—
	'In Schedule 6 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (speed limits for vehicles of certain classes), in section 5(2)(b)(iii), column (c) leave out "40" and insert "50".'.
	New clause 16—Speed awareness courses—
	'(1)   The appropriate national authority shall establish courses for offenders guilty of offences under section 17(4) or 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27).
	(2)   The appropriate national authority may issue guidance to course providers, or to any category of course provider, as to the conduct of courses established under subsection (1).
	(3)   Course providers shall have regard to any guidance given to them under subsection (2).
	(4)   Guidance issued under subsection (2) will make provision in relation to the content and approval of courses and may include provision—
	(a)   in relation to the criteria to be applied for identifying those to whom courses should be offered;
	(b)   in relation to the content and length of courses;
	(c)   for the monitoring of courses and course providers;
	(d)   in relation to the making of applications for approval;
	(e)   in relation to withdrawing approval; and
	(f)   specifying the maximum fees that a person may be required to pay for a course and by when they are to be paid.
	(5)   In drawing up guidance issued under subsection (2), the appropriate national authority shall consult such organisations and individuals as it considers fit.'.
	New clause 19—Amendment of Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988—
	'Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 shall be amended by substituting the word "discretionary" for the word "obligatory" in column 6.'.
	Amendment No. 18, in clause 22, page 25, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment No. 19, in page 25, line 30, leave out 'mobile telephones'.
	Amendment No. 20, in page 26, line 2, leave out 'Obligatory' and insert 'Discretionary'.
	Amendment No. 21, in page 26, line 5, leave out 'mobile telephones'.

Christopher Chope: The new clause would enable the increasing volume of funds obtained by so-called safety camera partnerships to be reinvested in education or training programmes undertaken by local authority members of those partnerships. The Government have introduced proposals for road safety grants in clause 1, but we believe that their proposals are de minimis in comparison with the potential of new clause 1.
	I am pleased to say that our proposal in the new clause has been warmly supported by the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety and I understand that the Liberal Democrats also support it. In Committee, furthermore, it was not only supported but enthusiastically spoken to by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who I am sorry to say is not in his place this afternoon. He pressed the Minister hard to justify the Government's belief that the revenue raised from speed cameras should not be reinvested in education and training programmes for drivers.

David Kidney: We have seen expressed in some parts of the media the unfortunate idea that speed camera fines are simply a way of raising more money for the Government. Does the hon. Gentleman not worry that the new clause, which proposes to make positive use of the funds raised, could be misinterpreted by such media mischief?

Christopher Chope: I know that there are many mischievous people working in the media, but anyone suggesting that Conservative Members are proposing incentives for more speed camera offences to be detected in order to raise more money from fines would be unaware of the campaign that we have been waging against using speed cameras as "greed cameras", as I have called them in the past. We believe that there is already a clear and unexplained disparity between the revenue raised by some safety camera partnerships and that raised by others.
	The hon. Gentleman may like to know the figures that apply to my own local area of Dorset. As reported in the excellent local paper, the Daily Echo, on Tuesday 15 February this year:
	"Speed fines for one in ten drivers: welcome to Dorset, you're nicked".
	That was the headline. The article continued:
	"More speeding fines were issued in Dorset last year than in Greater Manchester—which has a population three-and-a-half times bigger."
	I do not believe that the people of Dorset drive less well than the people of Greater Manchester. Rather, that statistic stems from the fact that some of the Dorset speed cameras are situated in positions that rather unfairly confront people with the full rigour of the law. I also believe that the money could be effectively spent investing in road safety education, which cannot be afforded in Dorset at the moment. Much of the revenue from speed camera fines is reverting to the Treasury rather than being made available for reinvestment in road safety purposes.
	One of the ironies of the speed camera debate is that the number of people being killed on our roads is continuing to increase rather than decline. That should not be happening, because we now have much safer vehicles and many improvements have been carried out on our highways. We are achieving a reduction of speeds, accidents and fatalities at the specific site of speed cameras—that is hardly surprising—but people continue to speed elsewhere, resulting in a significant number of deaths.

Eric Martlew: I am trying to follow the gist of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but is he not effectively advocating having more speed cameras? He acknowledges that speed cameras stop accidents, so why should we not logically deduce that we need more speed cameras further to reduce them?

Christopher Chope: Bad driving is responsible for many accidents, and that is why I have argued robustly in favour of having more traffic police. As the hon. Gentleman knows from earlier debates, we have drawn the public's attention to the fact that the number of traffic police has declined by almost 3,000—about a third—under the present Government.
	We believe that the best way of ensuring good driving standards on the roads is, first, to have good driver education, including revision courses if necessary, in order to encourage drivers to achieve the highest standards on the roads. Secondly, we believe that the money invested in road safety at the moment is inadequate and could be significantly enhanced. That is one reason why we want to divert the money currently going straight to the Treasury into speed awareness and driver improvement courses. I know that that proposal is broadly welcomed by many members of safety camera partnerships. I know from conversations with people involved in the Dorset safety camera partnership that they disagree with the Government policy of not allowing surplus revenue to be reinvested in education and training programmes.

Andrew Miller: If a huge number of people in Dorset and elsewhere are being caught by speed cameras, surely the hon. Gentleman would accept that such people are committing an offence. Which other offence whose potential outcome could be the death of another person does he believe should be treated as leniently?

Christopher Chope: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being rather unrealistic about this matter. I know that he joins me in being a supporter of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, so does he not agree that we should be encouraging responsible driving, at speeds that are appropriate for all the circumstances? Just because someone puts up a sign saying, "Thou shalt travel at 30 mph," it does not necessarily mean that an objective test would find that that was the appropriate speed to travel on that part of the road.

Greg Knight: The point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) would perhaps be valid if every speed limit in the UK were truly appropriate. Is there not an overwhelming case for carrying out a nationwide speed audit to ensure that every speed limit is appropriate?

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, that is why he and I have both jointly announced such a policy, and I am grateful to him for reminding a wider audience of it. It is not dissimilar to a policy adopted in New Zealand and Australia, where each stretch of road is examined to assess the most appropriate speed limit, bearing in mind the fact that the limit must be the maximum speed at which drivers can travel in ideal conditions.
	The 2003 vehicle speeds statistics for Great Britain, which were published last year, showed that 57 per cent. of drivers broke the 30 mph speed limits and 50 per cent. broke the limits on motorways. Faced with that sort of evidence, surely a more humble and less arrogant Government would acknowledge that something could be wrong with the speed limits, given that more than half of drivers admit to breaking them.
	What has happened under the present Government is that the speed limits have fallen into disrepute, so that people increasingly think that the only time they need to comply with a speed limit is where it is reinforced by a speed camera. That in turn results in more inappropriate speeding on our roads. Conservative Members believe that that is a major subject to be dealt with.

David Wilshire: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of speed cameras, may I bring him back to the original purpose of the new clause—to release money, irrespective of what we think about the cameras, for road safety? Does he agree that another way of releasing money pertains to the ridiculous bureaucracies that surround safety partnerships? Could we not free up funds by tackling that problem? The police could be allowed to get on with it and the money would not be wasted on pen-pushing, paper-moving bureaucracies called safety camera partnerships.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is right. Towards the end of parliamentary questions about one of the Government's key election campaigns, we heard the revelation that the amount spent by the present Government on advertising and self-promotion has increased fivefold during their period in office. Under speed camera safety partnerships people can reinvest the money for propaganda but they are not allowed to spend it on road safety education. I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be much better if the money were invested in information and education rather than propaganda.

Patrick McLoughlin: One of the downsides of speed cameras can be that motorists take back roads to avoid them. Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a disturbing rise in the number of fatalities on B and C roads, where cameras tend not to be sited, as they are on main roads? That is certainly a problem and a concern in my constituency. Speed cameras have been installed on the A6, so other roads are more heavily used and accidents on them have increased.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is another example of the law of unintended consequences. I do not think that when the Government put all the emphasis on speed cameras, they intended there to be more fatalities on B and C roads, but that has been the result. They thought that cameras would improve road safety, but that is not what has happened. My hon. Friend referred to what was happening in his constituency. One of the reasons why speeders on B and C roads feel that they can get away with it is that the number of police engaged on speed enforcement has been cut back so severely by the Government, as I pointed out earlier.

David Kidney: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman mentioned speed awareness and driver improvement courses as possible beneficiaries of his new clause. Currently, when people successfully attend those courses they avoid a fine in court or penalty points on their licence, so it seems fair that they should pay the cost of the course, which makes the courses self-financing. Is he proposing to undermine that?

Christopher Chope: Many people involved in safety camera partnerships believe that the courses should be made available to those who cannot afford to attend them. From the discussions we held in Committee, I thought that the hon. Gentleman and I were on the same side on that issue. Certainly, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety supports the new clause. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is trying to argue himself into a position whereby he will not have to support it in the Division Lobby, but he will have to do better than raising that spurious objection. As far as I am concerned, the more people who go on speed awareness and safety improvement courses the better. That is why, as I have told the House before, I am a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists and encourage other people to take the advanced driving test and improve their driving standard.

Andrew Turner: As one of those who, because of the unsatisfactory nature of their driving, are not eligible to be members of the institute, may I ask my hon. Friend to give us his view on some information brought to my attention by a constituent the other day? In some parts of the country, when one is issued with a speeding fine one has the alternative of taking an advanced motoring or similar course, but that option is not available in other areas. What would my hon. Friend say to my constituent about the fact that there are different penalties for the same offence within the United Kingdom jurisdiction?

Christopher Chope: I would tell my hon. Friend's constituent that I hope that new clause 2 will be drawn to his attention. My hon. Friend's point conveniently enables me to commend the virtues of that proposal, which says:
	"If a person who has at least seven and no more than eleven penalty points endorsed on his driving licence subsequently successfully completes a driver improvement course or speed awareness course authorised by the Secretary of State, he shall be entitled to have the number of penalty points endorsed on his licence reduced by three."
	Our reason for proposing the new clause was the discussion in Committee, from which it emerged that access to a driver improvement or speed awareness course that led to a reduction in the number of penalty points was controlled by the magistrates court. Thus, for example, if someone had been issued with three fixed penalty notices and nine points they would be unable to attend such a course, with a consequent reduction in their penalty points, unless the matter was referred to the magistrates court. We thought that an unnecessarily bureaucratic way of addressing the issue. Surely we should encourage as many people as possible who have got into bad habits and who would benefit from a driver improvement or speed awareness course to take such a course. That is the reason for new clause 2, whose provisions would address the concerns of my hon. Friend's constituent about injustice and inequity.
	As for my hon. Friend's aspiration to be as good a driver as the best, I suggest that one way of doing that would be to go in for one of the courses run by the Institute of Advanced Motorists. He would not have to go the whole way, so to speak, but he could join one of the institute's local groups, which would identify any bad habits that he may have got into. He would be a superhuman driver if he did not have some bad habits. As we are approaching the 50th anniversary of the institute, this is an appropriate time for Members to commend it and promote its virtues.

Andrew Miller: On that point I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He might also advise his hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) that if he were a tad embarrassed about taking a driving course in his constituency, he could take an IAM course in London.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The course could be undertaken on a wholly confidential basis—without commitment, as they say. Indeed, such a course could include people such as Mr. Speaker if they wanted to join it. I know that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) is as enthusiastic a supporter of the IAM as I am.
	I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, he will make warm and welcoming noises about new clause 2. It addresses a lacuna that we identified in Committee. What could possibly be wrong with encouraging people to improve their own driving and thereby benefit from a reduction in penalty points in the circumstances set out in the provision?
	New clause 3 is on a slightly different topic. It would raise the maximum penalty for dangerous driving from two years to five years. I hope that the Government will accept it almost without demur, because I understand that such an increase in the maximum penalty for dangerous driving has been Government policy for some time. However, they have rather kicked into touch their review of road traffic offences involving bad driving. The Government commissioned the Halliday report in May 2003, yet it was produced for public gaze only on the last day that we considered the Bill in Committee—so it was hardly on the fast track. The result is that the Government have been able to avoid legislating on, and changing the penalties for, road traffic offences involving bad driving.
	New clause 3, and one or two of the other new clauses to which I shall address my remarks shortly, is meant to ensure that the Bill deals with issues on which consultation has effectively taken place. The Government have said publicly that they support an increase in the maximum penalty for dangerous driving, which is currently two years' imprisonment, but under my proposal it would be five years instead, thus mirroring the increase from 10 to 14 years that has taken place in the maximum period of imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving.
	I may be unduly cynical, but I suspect that the Government's inhibition relates to the fact that such a proposal could result in a lot more people going to prison. Hon. Members who believe that bad driving is dangerous—indeed, it can be lethal—do not wish the number of available prison places to dictate policy. We believe that the policy should be established by Parliament—that we should establish what we think are the appropriate penalties and offences, and that the appropriate number of prison places should be made available.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend's assumption is correct. The Government admit on page 30 of their document "Review of Road Traffic Offences involving Bad Driving" that the proposals that he is talking about
	"could create an additional demand for about 800 prison places."
	It continues:
	"The great bulk of these would result from increasing the maximum penalty for dangerous driving from 2 to 5 years' imprisonment, to which the Government is already committed, when resources are available."
	Does he not think that if the Government are already committed to that, they should get on with it? They can find enough resources to advertise Government programmes. Why cannot they find the necessary resources for this proposal?

Christopher Chope: Indeed, I have that document open on page 30, and was about to quote from it. It is encouraging to know that my right hon. Friend and I are very much on the same wavelength, and he is absolutely right, because this an other issue on which the Government talk a good talk. They go along to the road safety lobbies and lobbies including the relatives of victims of serious and fatal road accidents, and they say, "We're on your side." However, as is clear from what has been said, we have a policy to which the Government are already committed—raising the maximum penalty for dangerous driving from two to five years—but they are not prepared to sign up to it because of the resource implications. What a perverse arrangement.
	We have tabled new clause 3 to give the Government the opportunity to endorse today a proposal that is already their policy, rather than to play the delaying game, as they have been doing until now. How else can one explain a period of 21 months between the launching of an inquiry into road traffic offences involving bad driving and the publication of that inquiry's report, which extends only to some 31 pages? That does not give the impression of a Government who are seriously committed to taking tough, deterrent action against the worst drivers—the dangerous drivers—but they could address that today by accepting new clause 3.
	New clause 4 is also a reflection of what the Government say is their policy. Again, they are talking about such a policy, but they are not yet prepared to sign up to it. By tabling new clause 4, we created the opportunity to invite the Government to sign up today to what they say is their own policy:
	"If a person causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising him to drive a motor vehicle of that class he is guilty of an offence."
	That sounds like a lot of common sense. If people deliberately drive a vehicle for which they do not hold a licence—in other words, they are not qualified and have not passed the appropriate test—they should not be on the road. Surely, if while driving such a vehicle on the road they are involved in an accident from which a death results, that conduct should constitute a specific offence. New clause 4 would create a new offence of causing the death of another person in the circumstances that I describe.
	New clause 6, in similar vein, would make causing death by driving while disqualified a separate offence. It states:
	"If a person causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place while disqualified from driving by order of a court he is guilty of an offence."
	Again, that is canvassed in the document, "Review of Road Traffic Offences involving Bad Driving", and the debate will give the Minister the opportunity to explain why the Government have not already taken such action, as they have joined the campaign that we have waged to try to get disqualified drivers off the road and deter them from returning to it. New clause 6 would emphasise to those people who are thinking of driving while disqualified that, if they are involved in an accident that results in death while they are doing so, they could spend a lot of time locked up in prison irrespective of whether they are wholly to blame for the consequences that flow from that accident. The argument is that they would have brought the guilt upon themselves by their own conduct in driving on the road while disqualified.

Rob Marris: Can the hon. Gentleman give an indication—he intimates imprisonment—of what he thinks the penalty should be for the offence that would be created under new clause 4?

Christopher Chope: I cannot—I could, but I am not going to—because I do not want to create a barrier between myself and the Government. I have expressed the proposal in the most open terms, so that the Government can accept it and not say, "We don't agree with the maximum penalty." Obviously, that would be a matter for discussion, but I am sure that we could reach an accommodation with the Government on the maximum penalty in relation to new clause 4 or new clause 6 if they are willing to debate that with us.
	I shall not comment on new clause 7 for the moment because it was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), and I look forward to hearing his contribution on it.
	New clause 12 would raise the maximum speed for heavy goods vehicles on single-carriageway roads from 40 to 50 mph in ideal driving circumstances. During the debate on such a proposal in Committee, I was delighted that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, enthusiastically supported my idea. He brought to that debate much experience of what it is like in the more barren parts of Scotland, where he believes that HGVs should be able to travel at 50 mph, rather than 40 mph. [Interruption.] I knew that, if I used a particular type of language, I would ensure that the hon. Gentleman returned to his place very quickly.

John Thurso: I hope that I will have the opportunity to comment on new clause 12 more fully later, but may I assure the hon. Gentleman that the north of Scotland is not barren, but highly productive?

Christopher Chope: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know the north of Scotland a little, but not so well as he does. I look forward to hearing his arguments on new clause 12.
	The proposal in new clause 12 is supported by the magazine Commercial Motor and the Road Haulage Association. Indeed, I have received a letter of support from its director general. I am sure that the ordinary motoring public will also be pleased that we are thinking seriously about raising the maximum speed for heavy goods vehicles on single carriageway roads in ideal circumstances to 50 mph.
	As I pointed out in Committee, when the 40 mph rule was first introduced, traffic levels on single carriageway roads were such that it was relatively easy for a motorist to overtake a heavy goods vehicle, so it could be done comparatively safely. Traffic was thus not held up at the speed of the slowest vehicle. Given current traffic conditions on many single carriageway trunk roads, especially those that meander between the east of Dorset towards the Devon border and beyond, it is difficult to find an opportunity to overtake a vehicle travelling at 40 mph, which leads to queues, often many miles long, of traffic travelling at or around that speed.

Greg Knight: Is there not another argument to support my hon. Friend's case? Since the speed limit was introduced, heavy goods vehicles have been fitted with much more effective braking systems, including air brakes in most cases, and power assisted steering. They can thus travel safely at higher speeds.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend makes a good point.
	The Minister put up the defence against the proposal in Committee that, if vehicles travelled faster, the consequences of any accidents in which they were involved would be greater. No one would disagree with that, but we are suggesting that the mere presence of lorries that are limited to travelling at 40 mph on single carriageway roads is creating a lot of driver frustration, which leads to people taking unnecessary risks by trying to overtake when it is probably not safe to do so.
	We know that the frustration among the motoring public is such that at least one major delivery company—I think that it is the company that delivers for Tesco—has a notice emblazoned on the back of its heavy goods vehicles to show that they are limited to travelling at 40 mph on single carriageway roads. It has done that because people have complained that the vehicles should be travelling faster. Before the proliferation of speed cameras, I suspect that many heavy goods vehicles travelled at nearer 50 mph than 40 mph when circumstances permitted, but given today's tighter enforcement, they are going at only 40 mph, which is creating driver frustration and consequent road danger. If new clause 12 were accepted, it would be a move in the right direction towards improving road safety.
	I shall leave the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) to make his own arguments about new clause 16 because he tabled the measure. However, Conservative Members are on the same side as him because we want more support for speed awareness courses. While I am on that subject, I can tell the House about a successful day of action carried out by the Hampshire constabulary. I think that it happened last week, but it was certainly reported in the New Milton Advertiser over the weekend. There is a dangerous piece of C road in the heart of the New Forest with a standard 40 mph speed limit. Hampshire police detected several vehicles travelling in excess of that speed and the drivers were given the option of either accepting a fixed penalty notice or having a discussion with a group of people who had owned animals that had been killed on the road, most of which were ponies. Not surprisingly, most of the motorists opted for the discussion.
	A lot of interesting information came out of the process. Many people had not realised how dangerous the road was or how common such accidents involving animals were. Some had not even realised that the animals had owners. Although the animals are New Forest ponies, they have owners, so much distress and hardship is caused if they are run over by motorists who travel too fast. Many motorists had not realised the consequences of such collisions for them and their cars.
	I support such enforcement using discretion at the roadside, although any motorist who was driving extremely fast was referred to the magistrates court or had to accept a fixed penalty with no argument. Such driver awareness programmes are a positive way forward for road safety. They are better than just having speed cameras because that system does not allow the issue to be addressed in the sensitive way that Hampshire police employed. As I have said earlier, sufficient numbers of police officers need to be devoted to road traffic responsibilities to carry out such a scheme, but we will put that right when we get into government.
	New clause 19 arose from a further debate in Committee after it became apparent that there was no system of mitigation if people were given fixed penalty notices in circumstances in which they believed that, if a police officer had been at the scene, he would have exercised discretion and issued a caution or warning instead of a penalty. My thinking about the new clause partly arises from a constituency case. One of my constituents was caught out by a speed camera on a road on which the speed limit had recently been reduced from 40 mph to 30 mph. The driver had not realised due to an oversight that the speed limit had changed.
	My constituent received a standard form to fill in to accept that he was driving the vehicle at the time. The form said that if he had mitigating circumstances, he should refer the matter to the magistrates court. He did that, but when the case reached court, the magistrate said that the court had no discretion on the issuing of penalty points. All hon. Members will have heard of constituents who have thought it unjust that they have received three penalty points as a consequence of a fixed penalty notice.
	I know of another person who was convicted of speeding, despite the fact that the temporary speed limit sign on the road had blown over in the wind. I am sure that we can all think of similar examples. A wise law would take into account individual circumstances and allow proper discretion. Indeed, that is the type of law that we have in a mature democracy. A Stalinist society, however, makes an unthinking demand: "Thou shalt comply and if thou hast not, whatever the explanation, thou art guilty of an offence for which thou art subject to a fixed penalty." We need to take a more mature approach and allow some discretion and that would be the effect of incorporating new clause 19 into the law.

Andrew Turner: I support my hon. Friend, but does he agree that the loss of a driving licence has very different consequences for a merchant banker who lives in Kensington and a plumber who lives in the rural depths of Sussex or the Isle of Wight?

Christopher Chope: I agree, and we could have a long debate about such differences. My hon. Friend's example demonstrates what happens when one reaches the stage of totting up points. Someone with 12 penalty points has to go to the magistrates court and argue that they should not be disqualified because the consequences would be dire for their job or occupation. I accept that for some people the consequences can be grave, but sometimes the injustice is compounded by the fact that the total number of penalty points is the result of a series of relatively minor speeding incidents. Some hon. Members have been subject to the totting up of points, after being convicted of a series of minor infringements of road traffic laws—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) seems to know who I have in mind, but Members on both sides of the House have found themselves in such difficulties.
	New clause 19 is one of the most potent measures in this group of amendments, as it aims to redress the balance between the ordinary motorist and the law, and would ensure that the law is fair, rather than oppressive. The proliferation of fixed penalties is all the more reason why discretion should be allowed in genuinely mitigating circumstances. That discretion should be used to allow not only a reduced fine but a reduction in the number of penalty points. My proposals go much further and are more effective than the Government's proposals in the Bill.
	Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 deal with driver education and unsafe driving. They would amend clause 22, which deals with the mischief of mobile telephones. We had a good debate about that in Committee and the Opposition have no problem with penalising people who cause danger to themselves or others as a result of driving without proper care or attention while using a mobile phone. However, we are concerned about the definition of driving. Under case law, which would be the defining consideration if this piece of legislation was accepted, driving includes circumstances such as a vehicle being stationary in a five-mile queue. The driver may have left the wheel to use a phone but, according to the law, he would still be regarded as driving.

Rob Marris: Even when his engine was switched off?

Christopher Chope: Indeed, that is the case, but we do not believe that it accords with common sense or fair play.
	We should discourage people from using mobile phones while driving and, indeed, penalise them for doing so. However, we should not penalise them with three penalty points and a fine for doing so at the wheel when their car is in stationary traffic and they have turned off the ignition. We tabled a reasonable amendment in Committee to try to make an exception to the rule, but the Government rejected it out of hand. To be fair, I do not think that they really understood the law, because any rational person listening to the debate would have said that our points were valid.
	Since that debate, it has come to my notice there have been incidents in which police officers have gone down lines of stationary traffic booking people who were using mobile phones. That is demonstrates a perverse sense of priorities and it just fuels many motorists' belief that, rather than improving road safety, the Government are engaged in a war against the motorist. If the Government want to improve road safety—we are highly supportive of that proposition—as well as the relationship between the police, the law and the motoring public, they should accept the amendments, which would ensure that individuals who use a mobile phone when their vehicle is stationary would not be guilty of an offence. The Minister will notice that, to ensure that the amendments were selected, we made certain that their terms are not identical to those of the amendment that we tabled in Committee. We would be happy to revert to the wording of our original amendment, if the Minister offers to accept it, and we would withdraw the amendments that we have tabled today.

Andrew Miller: I accept that applications of the law can become ludicrous. That would be the case if, for example, a vehicle was literally stationary and could not move because it was in a five-mile queue. However, could the hon. Gentleman tell us more about the case that he cited and see whether the House would agree with him in those particular circumstances?

Christopher Chope: I do not have the report of Committee proceedings with me, but that case is set out in Hansard. In Committee, I cited case law about the definition of driving.

Andrew Miller: Perhaps I was not clear enough, as the hon. Gentleman has missed my point. The case law to which he refers predates mobile phones by a long chalk. He talked about a specific incident in which a police officer went down a line of traffic and booked motorists in stationary vehicles who were on the telephone. Could he tell us more about that?

Christopher Chope: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman more.

Andrew Miller: Is it fiction?

Christopher Chope: I doubt very much whether the person who informed me about it was telling porkies.

Andrew Miller: If it were true, the hon. Gentleman would be on to a good point.

Christopher Chope: Surely, the hon. Gentleman in turn accepts that we would be mad as legislators to create a strict offence but expect the police or more probably cameras to separate the just from the unjust. Surely the best thing is to ensure in the first place that the law is just and that there is a proper exception to the application of it in circumstances in which he and I would agree that it should not apply—that is, in relation to people who are using mobile phones in stationary traffic when they have switched the engine of their vehicle off.
	A parliamentary colleague, who is not in the Chamber at present, has on her dashboard a little television. I have never got to the stage of owning a car that had a television on the dashboard, but apparently the television switches off automatically when the car is in motion and switches on automatically when the car is stationary at traffic lights. It is, apparently, a lawful piece of kit and a standard feature of some of the more up-market vehicles. In this case, it is a British vehicle—a Land Rover, I think. I have not gone into the detail of it, but if it is lawful to have on the dashboard a television that is activated when the vehicle is stationary, should it be unlawful to use a mobile phone when the vehicle is stationary and the engine is switched off? We are making the law an ass if we legislate on that basis. That is why I hope the House will accept the amendment, along with a host of the new clauses.

Andrew Miller: This is a fascinating group of new clauses. On some of them, I find myself on the side of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), and on others I am violently opposed to him. I shall deal with the two points on which I strongly agree with the tenor of his arguments. They relate to new clauses 3 and 4, on which the hon. Gentleman made some powerful points.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), has started a consultation, which I warmly welcome. I hope the Opposition welcome it as well, so that whoever occupies my hon. Friend's position after the election—

David Jamieson: In 15 months.

Andrew Miller: Indeed.
	I hope that whoever holds the position will accept that legislation needs to be introduced to reflect the spirit of our discussions and the mood outside. What could be said in any consultation that would cause my hon. Friend not to accept the point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch and the point that he himself sets out in the report that is out for consultation? I want an answer to that because I find it difficult not to agree with the hon. Gentleman in his cogent argument about the need for change. My hon. Friend knows my views because we have discussed the matter before in the Chamber and elsewhere, in my capacity as a patron of the charity RoadPeace.
	The arguments are powerful and need to be dealt with. We must send out a strong message that if the House decides this afternoon to await the outcome of the consultation, unless somebody produces some stunning new arguments that make the House review its conclusions, there will be legislation to implement the intention of new clauses 3 and 4, and that legislation will be tough on offenders.

Christopher Chope: Do the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has just deployed extend to new clause 6?

Andrew Miller: Yes, indeed. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assistance on that point.
	We disagree on the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the effectiveness or otherwise of speed cameras. Ultimately, there is one simple, incontrovertible fact: nobody gets caught by a speed camera who is not breaking the law. Anyone who whinges to any hon. Member about the fine they received as a result of speed camera evidence has broken the law.

Greg Knight: Is it not a valid point that the law may not be fair? Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. There are many instances of the police stopping motorists who are technically breaking the speed limit and letting those motorists proceed on their way with a warning, because the police appreciate and perceive that the breach of the law was de minimis or was in such circumstances that there was no danger to other road users. It was a technical breach of the law. Speed cameras have no discretion. That is the problem, and it has become worse over recent years.

Andrew Miller: I thought for a moment that we would get an admission of guilt from the right hon. Gentleman.
	The simple fact is that the technology employed is set to allow a certain amount of tolerance. There is already tolerance in all the circumstances in which cameras are put in place. It applies approximately the same latitude as the police would allow before enforcing a prosecution. That de facto pushes up the limits slightly.
	I can think of one specific camera that I know well on the Runcorn expressway—a 60 mph zone. It used to be a derestricted zone, but it was reduced to 60 mph because of some serious crashes on that stretch of road. Then speed cameras were introduced, which caused people to drive more slowly. The net effect was to make that stretch of road safer. Interestingly, one camera was removed in the recent past, because there is the belief that it has had the desired effect and the habits of most drivers there have changed.
	I believe that the technology can be used to assist in educating drivers. We should not see speed cameras as an alternative to police officers. They are a different tool used differently, placed as a result of consultation through the safety camera partnerships, which work extremely well, even in Dorset, as the hon. Member for Christchurch acknowledged. Their judgments are not from on high. They are judgments applied locally by local people who know the roads where the technology is to be installed.

Rob Marris: My hon. Friend has made the valid point that safety cameras only catch the guilty. The position adopted by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is contradictory: as far as I understand it, he wants both to have fewer safety cameras and, through new clause 9—which has not been selected today—to get rid of speed humps, which catch the innocent. On suburban roads, we should install more safety cameras and fewer speed bumps, so that the guilty are caught and the innocent, who drive at or below the speed limit, are not penalised.

Andrew Miller: As usual, my hon. Friend has made a powerful case. We must take a flexible look at what is available as the technology unfolds, because, for example, some of the number plate recognition technologies are amazingly effective.
	May I make a tiny diversion, Mr. Deputy Speaker? On the Saturday before last, I went out on patrol with the police in rural Cheshire. We were overtaken by a vehicle similar to one that the officers had had brought to their attention. Within 30 seconds, the powerful technology used by the police had sent us the vehicle's details, including its owner, the insurance details and the owner's address. That was an amazing demonstration of an effective piece of Government IT procurement, which is doing a marvellous job in terms of not only road safety, but broad crime prevention.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch that common sense must prevail when technology is employed. We do not know whether his example of a police officer who sought to prosecute people for using mobile phones when their engines were turned off in a stationary row of traffic is an urban myth or a rural myth, because we do not know which road it happened on. If it were true, however, I would agree that that is an inappropriate use of the law and that that officer's actions would put off people from sticking rigorously to the rules of the road. If it were true, it would also raise an interesting question about police training. We must ensure that officers are encouraged to apply the law pragmatically and sensibly.

Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman and I do not disagree on the use of new technology, which he has just described. It is admirable that the police now have the ability to monitor passing vehicles' number plates not only for road traffic offences such as no insurance, but for more serious crimes such as drug dealing—the technology can identify known drug dealers, whom the police can then apprehend. Does he agree that the effectiveness of the new technology depends on the reliability of the database? Does he accept that police forces across the country have raised serious concerns that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database is not as reliable as it should be?

Andrew Miller: I can only go by my own experience, which shows that the response is remarkably accurate. Any database—it does not matter whether it is a paper database or whether the information is held electronically—has an error level. If the right hon. Gentleman is setting out a case for making sure that the DVLA employs sufficient people to protect the database's integrity, I agree with him. That argument applies to any database to which the police have access, because databases should be kept to the highest level of accuracy to protect the integrity of the law enforcement process.
	Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise the need to introduce changes in some areas, particularly on the ground covered by new clauses 3, 4 and 6 and on the areas that my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) will raise later in the debate. The matter is important and we must work hard to ensure that public confidence in the integrity of the law is sustained. To that end, I accept the argument, which I suspect my hon. Friend the Minister will advance later, that a consultation period is required.
	In conclusion, I repeat my point on the principle behind new clauses 3, 4 and 6, and I want to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say in strong terms that the Government intend to introduce legislation to establish those points.

John Thurso: Before I discuss the individual new clauses, I want to make a general point. Taken individually, many of the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) are reasonable, and I have indicated those that I support. If we consider the totality of the new clauses, however, we perceive a kind of underlying mood music, which suggests that the motorist is hard done by and that an overall relaxation should take place. That argument assumes that motorists feel hard done by, but I have found that people increasingly understand the need for restraint with regard to speed. Most people to whom I speak either accept that speed cameras are a useful necessity or are looking for ways to introduce one in their community or on their roads.
	In my constituency, the A9, which I shall no doubt discuss later, runs up to Thurso from Inverness. One of the complaints is that the volume of traffic and the consequent deaths are happily insufficient to allow speed cameras to be installed in some of the villages and towns on that busy main road. I would look favourably on a relaxation of the criteria within the 30 mph limit, because prevention is better than deaths and accidents.
	I support new clause 1, with the caveat that I am not arguing from an anti-camera standpoint. Speed cameras are currently accompanied by a warning sign not less than 1 km from the camera, the camera itself is painted a bright orangey-yellow colour and has reflective tape on the back, and huge white grid lines are painted on the road, so any motorist who fails to take account of what is nothing short of a flashing beacon perhaps deserves everything that they get.
	The substantive point of new clause 1 is that the funds raised should be made available for education, and I see no harm in that whatsoever. I do not necessarily believe that speed cameras are simply nasty, money-grabbing machines, but if there are surplus funds and partnerships see a way in which they could be deployed that would be enabled by the new clause, I see no reason not to allow it to go through.
	Enforcement is important in relation to speeding offences, but we must not forget the other two Es—engineering and education. Where enforcement leads on to education, that is highly beneficial. Yesterday, I visited parts of Kent and East Sussex to look at some railways, and the very nice man who was driving me told me that when he had an accident two years ago, the police offered him a choice between prosecution and a driver awareness course. He obviously took the course, and said that he was delighted to have paid for it and learned a great deal that he had no idea he would take from it beforehand. I do not know the particular circumstances of the accident, but that aspect was beneficial. For that reason, I am happy to support new clause 1.

David Kidney: Would the hon. Gentleman like to charge people to go on a driver improvement course or a speed awareness course, irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the new clause?

John Thurso: Indeed; it should be up to the perpetrator to pay for the course. I am taken, however, by the idea of allowing a little discretion. Some people, certainly in my constituency, live on very small incomes or even on state benefits, and there is sometimes a good argument for—I would not want to use the term "scholarship"—

Greg Knight: A hardship fund.

John Thurso: Absolutely; that would be a good way of describing it. I would be happy with that approach if it encouraged more people to take it up.

Greg Knight: I am pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Could not a person of very meagre income who finds that they cannot afford to pay a fee en bloc for a speed awareness course opt for the fine and offer to pay at £2 a week?

John Thurso: The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point and I urge the Government to consider it. The critical point of principle is that an awful lot of people can pay and should pay, but in such circumstances as have been described by various hon. Members, it would be perfectly valid to do everything possible to encourage people to take the education route. If that means utilising an easy payment plan or a fund from another area, we should consider that.
	On new clause 2, I have some sympathy with the principle behind it, but it is defective in that it states:
	"he shall be entitled to have the number of penalty points endorsed on his licence reduced by three".
	That would clearly be wrong if the totting-up procedure had included, for example, offences involving two points. In Committee, the possibility was inserted into the Bill that fixed penalties could be lower than three points. Many of us argued against that and are hoping that, for speeding in particular, the level will stay at three or more. It is possible that somebody could arrive at the totting-up point where the new clause kicked in through a series of two-point penalties. In that case, it would clearly be wrong to get three taken off—or a 33.3 per cent. bonus. That is why I cannot support new clause 2.
	I have great sympathy for the new clauses on penalties and would certainly support them for all the reasons that the hon. Member for Christchurch set out. Given that it has taken several years to get to the point where we have a Road Safety Bill, I am not sure that we will get back to it for some years to come. These are such important matters that I urge the Government to consider, if possible, incorporating these new clauses in another place.
	New clause 7 puts a case with which I have considerable sympathy. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether, as I understand it, the new clause relates solely to England and would have no effect in Scotland. My concern stems from the fact that subsection (7)(c) defines a "rural road" as one where
	"there are no road markings in the centre of the road."
	In my constituency, a great number of A roads have no such marking—they are, as it were, one-and-a-half width roads. They tend to occur on the north coast and through Sutherland and Caithness in places that have very clear visibility, exceptionally low traffic volumes and long distances to travel. There would be no point whatsoever in reducing speed limits there from 60 mph; nobody is asking for it and there would be no great benefit.

Andrew Turner: It might assist the hon. Gentleman if I answered him now. Subsection (2) provides:
	"Where the area is the whole of England, the relevant authority . . . is the Secretary of State".
	I have not allowed for a relevant authority for the whole of Scotland, so only designations under subsection (3) could be made in that respect. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's highway authority would take account of his views on that matter.

John Thurso: I am grateful for that clarification. Although the hon. Gentleman's intention is absolutely right, I suspect that he may need to have a look at schedules 4 and 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, because I am not entirely certain that the relevant powers have been devolved, and that may cause him a small problem.
	New clause 12 would increase the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles from 40 to 50 mph. I will not detain the House with what I recounted in Committee in respect of the A9, but I should like to highlight the basic problem with the categorising of roads. A large part of the A9 is a modern road that is made up to a very high standard, where a speed of 50 mph is perfectly appropriate for a lorry, but other parts are made up to a 1970s standard and some go back to a 1960s standard.
	The longer-term problem is that some A roads are capable, through engineering, of allowing greater speeds than other A roads, some of which go right down to single-track in parts of the far north. Several hauliers have told me that because of the times at which drivers are permitted to drive, the long distances involved mean that they are unable to get to relevant markets. For example, on the long stretch of the A9 from Tain in Ross-shire down nearly to Perth, which has some dual carriageway but is mostly single carriageway, that extra 10 mph would permit drivers to reach some of their markets in one go without having to stay overnight in the cab. I remind the House of the sign just outside Inverness that states: "Frustration causes accidents—allow overtaking". That is a problem. Most lorry drivers are very good—they leave a gap between the vehicle in front and permit overtaking—but it would be helpful to increase the limit on that particular stretch of road.
	We have already dealt with speed awareness and I look forward to hearing the arguments of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). I am intrinsically sympathetic to new clause 16.
	I am not wholly convinced by new clause 19, for reasons that we discussed in Committee. It does not necessarily add anything to the measure or make life easier, and I suspect that I am not in total sympathy with the hon. Member for Christchurch about it. However, I want to comment on his points about the definition of "driver" and when people are deemed to be driving a car. As he will remember, I said in Committee that I had intended to stay out of the debate but, having heard the Under-Secretary's answer, I felt obliged to support the hon. Member for Christchurch. I gave an example, again from my beloved A9, of the roadworks at Berriedale last year, when the traffic lights were red for up to 15 minutes. We were happy with that because we were getting great improvements and we all knew about the wait.
	If someone happened to draw up when the lights turned from green to red, he knew that the time allowed for a lorry to go all the way down to the bottom and back up the other side at 5 mph and for traffic to pass in the opposite direction would be 15 minutes. One simply turned off the engine and used the time productively. Occasionally, one might have used a mobile phone—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] That was before the law changed. One would phone to say, "I caught it bad at the lights. It'll be another 15 minutes before I get there."
	The Under-Secretary responded by saying that, in such circumstances, the person concerned would not be prosecuted. However, as we discovered from further discussion, the law does not accord with that. The law is straightforward: simply sitting stationary, with the engine switched off for what will clearly prove to be a long wait, is not enough. I believe that, even if one got out of the car, stood alongside it and used a mobile phone, one could still be prosecuted. I do not know how many miles from the car one would have to walk before the courts decided that one was not driving.
	The serious point is that we are trying to get the message across to motorists that it is dangerous to use a mobile phone when in charge of a vehicle. Clearly, we do not want a position whereby every time a car stops at traffic lights for 30 seconds, people feel free to use their mobile phones; but equally, when it is obvious—for the reason that I outlined or, for example, because an unfortunate accident has occurred—that there will be a long wait, the inability to use a mobile phone will be perceived as unfair and silly. I suspect that people will not know the law and therefore break it without realising it. The Government could usefully examine the matter and introduce a correction to achieve the balance that I believe we all support.

Christopher Chope: Case law shows that one would not be deemed to be driving after one had got out of a car, gone into a shop and was engaged in selecting goods. At that stage, it would be said that one was no longer driving.

John Thurso: I am grateful for that clarification. The definitions should be re-examined, given that they were introduced before mobile phones were invented. I hope that the Government will at least consider the matter and perhaps use the opportunity in another place to introduce a more reasonable definition in respect of mobile phones.

David Kidney: I want to speak about new clause 16, which I tabled. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) mentioned the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and I declare a non-pecuniary interest in that I co-chair PACTS.
	My vision in tabling the new clause is for speed awareness courses throughout the country that are widely available to people who speed, in an attempt to correct their offending behaviour. There is currently no national model for speed awareness courses and the new clause proposes that the Government should establish a national scheme in which such courses are provided. There is a national scheme for drink-drive rehabilitation courses, for which legislation provides. Again, there is a national model for driver improvement schemes, with national monitoring of drivers' progress. We are therefore behind the curve on speed awareness courses.
	I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers, on behalf of the Department, is currently developing guidance for local authorities and police forces about when such courses should be used. It is significant that they are available; the current legal position is that police forces make conditional offers to people who would otherwise be prosecuted in court for speeding and receive a fine and points on their licence. The exact terms of the conditions and the judgment about whether someone has complied with them could be important for that person's future. It is therefore important that we are certain about them.
	I believe that the police have got as far as setting some general national standards for the courses and that they comment on the professionalism of the presenters and instructors who are used on them. However, we have not yet reached the stage where there is certainty throughout the country. Let me give a couple of examples of matters about which I want to know more. What is the purpose of a speed awareness course? To whom will it be directed? Are we considering first-time speeding offenders, to catch them early and give them a course instead of prosecuting them, or those who are speeding at a specific speed, who, whether it is their first or fourth offence, would be offered a course if they did not break the speed limit by too much? It is important to be clear about the purpose of the course.
	I believe that people should have the opportunity to go on a speed awareness course rather than going through the courts the first time they offend and that that should apply to everybody. That is a large number of people.

Greg Knight: As the hon. Gentleman knows, in America, there is a well-known offence of jaywalking whereby a pedestrian crosses the road recklessly instead of at a recognised crossing point. Does he believe that there is a case for educating pedestrians in the need to behave responsibly and improve their safety awareness? Is not there a case for expanding speed awareness courses into highway awareness courses for people other than motorists to attend?

David Kidney: The right hon. Gentleman should be careful of confusing two different matters. Speed awareness courses are for people who have broken the speed limit and been caught. We are trying to correct their behaviour before it becomes a bad habit for the rest of their driving careers. However, there is a case for much more education and I shall comment on new clause 1 shortly.
	We must also establish the best format for the courses. Some authorities provide a theoretical and a practical element but others provide only a theoretical element. Research increasingly shows that both are desirable in a speed awareness course. If we can establish that that is the case, it ought to be the national standard.
	I want to consider cost. Authorities that have already set up speed awareness courses made the policy decision that the courses should be self-financing and they therefore charge the people to whom they make the conditional offer to attend a sufficient fee to cover all the costs. I believe that the figure is currently £90. As a matter of principle, that is right. A person who attends the course avoids a fine in court and three points on the licence. Those matters have a value and it is right that people should pay for a course to avoid those consequences. I would therefore oppose the suggestion of the hon. Member for Christchurch that the money from speed camera fines should be used to allow all the lawbreakers to go on courses for free. However, I am sympathetic to the point of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) that, in the small number of cases when the individual cannot afford the option, there could be some sort of assistance through a hardship fund. I would be sympathetic to that.
	The hon. Member for Christchurch thought that I was manoeuvring myself into the position of being able to vote with the Government and against his new clause 1. However, I am encouraged by the new clause. It provides an opportunity for the House to speak with one voice and to resist the small number of ferocious critics in the media who say that speed camera fines are all about raising money for the Treasury's coffers. The Minister ought to think carefully about grabbing this amendment. Let us label it "the Conservative amendment" or "the Chope amendment", and say to those few in the media with such hostile views that the whole House believes that speed camera fine income is genuinely used for road safety purposes, and that we would even use the money for road safety educational purposes. I would say to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) that that money could be spent in schools on education relating to the safe crossing of roads, and on general educational projects on highway behaviour, but not on subsidising speed awareness courses for lawbreakers. That would be going too far.
	I believe that there is a benefit in having speed awareness courses, and I would like to give a couple of examples. In Staffordshire, we looked at the courses that had already been established in Lancashire and Northamptonshire, and decided to go ahead with the programme. Indeed, I was given the honour of launching the Staffordshire schemes. About 12 months later, I went back and saw one of the schemes in action. Actually, it is slightly inaccurate to say "in action", because I arrived when everyone had gone out in their cars for the practical part of the course, so I only saw the classroom in which the theory had been taught.
	I was able to see the reasons for breaking the speed limit that people had written down, and they seemed to fall into two groups. One group said that they had not appreciated that they were breaking the speed limit. Within that group, there must have been some people who had not been paying proper attention, although a few might legitimately have been able to claim that the signs were not as good as they could have been in some areas. The other group of people said that they had been under time pressure, and that that had caused them to speed. Many of those people had probably not allowed enough time for their journey and had had to break the law to catch up. However, there might be a sub-group involving people who drive for a living and who might have been subjected to unfair pressure from their employers. We need to tackle that problem with the employers.
	In Staffordshire, the courses have made a good start and are proving very successful. Lancashire, however, provided the father and mother of the courses, and now has a lot more experience of running them. As a result, it also has a lot more evidence of their success. After the courses had been running in Lancashire for a short time, Staffordshire university was asked to carry out an evaluation of them. Dr. Michelle Meadows produced a report identifying significant improvements in "drivers' attitude to speed" and in "drivers' violating behaviour", and showing reductions in drivers' self-reported speeds ranging from 2.6 mph to 4.8 mph. It seemed that the improvements in driving behaviour were sustained for three months after attending the course.
	Dr. Meadows made recommendations for changes to the design of the evaluation and for further research into reoffending rates. That advice was followed, and after a further period of research, Lancashire county council was able to identify a marked difference in reoffending rates between those who had attended speed awareness courses and those who had not. Among those who had been found guilty of speeding and had attended a course, the reoffending rate was 36 in 1,000; among those who had never attended a course, the rate was 98 in 1,000—nearly three times as high. So there is some evidence of the effectiveness of the courses.
	I am grateful to Neil Cunliffe of Lancashire county council, who has sent me a copy of one of the latest letters that his team has received. It is from the wife of a man who attended one of these courses. She wrote:
	"He was not impressed about attending the course, even less about the cost and very sceptical about what he would learn, but he didn't want the points! He returned from the course, full of praise, commenting it was money very well spent (regardless of saving his three points) and feeling it had really helped him to reassess his driving."
	That is the genuine voice of someone with experience of a speed awareness course telling us that it had been a valuable thing to do.
	I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the idea of being much more vigorous about adding this arm to our education programme for the prevention of future casualties, by making speed awareness courses much more mainstream and giving them national consistency in terms of how they are offered across the country.

Greg Knight: So far, this debate has been excellent and we have heard a number of diverging views. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) referred to the mood music on the Conservative Benches, which he identified as pro-motorist. I do not take that as an insult, but I do not think that it is particularly accurate either. I would say that we were trying to achieve fairness and balance, because we support lower speed limits where appropriate, as well as supporting higher ones in certain cases, as shown in new clause 12. New clauses 3 and 4 propose higher penalties and new offences, while new clause 19 proposes increased provision for mitigation.
	We also support the tightening of the law so that, in appropriate cases, motorists cannot be prosecuted. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred to the case of a motorist sitting in a line of traffic using a mobile phone. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) wanted to know where that had happened and how the case had been brought to my hon. Friend's attention. That is not the point. The point is that, under the present law, a prosecution could be brought in those circumstances. We ought to ensure that that could not happen, and that the police prosecute motorists only when their use of a mobile phone is clearly interfering with the standard of their driving.
	I warmly support speed awareness courses. I would go further and introduce highway awareness courses for those who are not motorists but who have to cross the highway, namely children and other pedestrians. However, that is perhaps a debate for another day. The arrangements in place for speed awareness courses should never amount to a deterrent to a person who has been given the option to attend one. A case was brought to my attention by a personal friend who lives in Reigate and who was caught speeding by a speed camera. When the papers came through—he showed me the documentation involved—he was offered the option to attend a speed awareness course on a particular date and at a certain cost. Because of his diary commitments, however, he decided that he would rather take the penalty points and pay the fine, as that would be less disruptive to the work that he had been contracted to carry out on that day.
	There are many other such cases. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross suggested that people might be deterred from attending a course for other reasons, perhaps because they were unwaged or of limited means. I hope that the Minister will explain what guidance exists on requiring motorists to pay for speed awareness courses. If a motorist can ask for, and be given, time to pay a fine by weekly instalments, surely a similar provision should apply to the payment of the fee for a speed awareness course. The whole thrust of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is that we do not want the fees and the other arrangements for speed awareness courses to have a deterrent effect. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether a person of limited means—with no savings and perhaps no income, for example—would be able to apply for time to pay the fee if they were offered the option of attending a speed awareness course.
	I look forward, I hope shortly, to hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) refer to his new clause 7, which I find interesting. In the absence of hearing his argument, however, I cannot support it currently. I am particularly concerned about proposed new subsection (8), which indicates that two speed limits could be set, one by the Secretary of State, who, by the nature of the fact that he must examine the wider picture, would tend to pick the correct speed limit for the stretch of road in question, whereas a local council, under pressure from local lobby groups, might seek to appease a vociferous minority by setting a lower speed limit than appropriate. I therefore have great concerns.
	In certain parts of the country, local authorities already seek to undermine—I suppose that that is the correct word—existing speed limits. I am thinking of the erection of speed humps. In many cases, the speed limit on a particular road is 30 mph, but the local authority has erected speed humps such that it is impossible to travel at anything close to 30 mph without wrecking one's vehicle. If there is a case for having traffic travelling at, say, 20 mph or 15 mph, why is that not the speed limit? That sort of incident causes outrage and anger in local communities and among motorists. If there is a compelling case for lowering the speed limit, perhaps near a school, I would support that rather than leaving the speed limit at 30 mph and erecting speed humps.
	I shall give the House a particular example, which I am aware does not come from my constituency. Occasionally, I must travel to Derby, and my usual route involves a road called Grampian way. Some years ago, the Labour-controlled city council in Derby decided to construct a plethora of speed humps along Grampian way. Initially, that was done under pressure from local residents who wanted traffic-calming measures—they did not specify speed humps, but that is what they got. Three of those speed humps regularly fouled the exhaust system on two of the motor vehicles that I own, no matter at what speed one sought to negotiate them. The pleasure of the local community at achieving traffic calming in the area soon turned to dismay and anger, because local residents realised that not only were those speed humps extremely intrusive but they had increased pollution—not just airborne pollution but, particularly irritatingly, noise pollution during the evening, such that they were regularly kept awake as heavier vehicles in particular negotiated the speed humps. A campaign then developed against those speed humps on Grampian way. In one of the safe Labour wards within the Derby city council area, an anti-speed hump candidate stood in the city council elections—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making the speech that he would have made had new clause 9 been selected for debate. He will be aware that it was not selected. I have been fairly generous so far, but perhaps he would bring to a close his remarks on speed humps.

Greg Knight: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been rumbled.
	To conclude the point, the anti-speed hump candidate won the election, the Labour party lost control of Derby city council and the speed humps were removed.
	Therefore, there are many other ways of dealing with the problem of inappropriate speed limits, which is the point on which I started. That is why we support flexibility on speed limits. New clause 12 is therefore to be welcomed. I hope that the Minister, having had time to reflect, will be more positive about accepting it today than was indicated in Committee.
	I also hope that the Minister will respond positively to new clause 19, as it is an attempt to allow genuine mitigation to be taken into account—in those cases in which points should be put forward on behalf of the motorist for transgressing—which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the penalty imposed in such an exceptional case should be lower than would otherwise occur. That would not lead to a free-for-all, as the Minister knows that guidance can be issued saying that, in all but exceptional cases, points should be imposed, and we fully accept that that ought to be the norm. However, hon. Members will know of the sort of cases to which I allude, perhaps from their own experience, in which a more lenient view could and should be taken.
	I am not sorry that this debate may be the Government's transport swansong. I am sorry, however, that this debate may be the swansong for the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). In some respects, he has been an excellent Minister. I hope that he will make today's proceedings an event to remember by accepting new clauses 1, 6 and 19. If he does so, we would happily withdraw the rest.

Rob Marris: I find new clause 16 very interesting. I say that as someone who spent five and a half years as a professional driver, three of those as a bus driver, principally driving trolley buses, and who never had an accident of any description—whether someone having an accident with me or me having an accident with someone. That was because of the superb training that I received in Vancouver, Canada, from what was then called B. C. Hydro, which ran the metropolitan buses within the Greater Vancouver regional district. It is important to encourage people to have training courses. We already have a statutory driver re-education scheme for those who fall foul of the drink-driving laws. New clause 16, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), is very attractive.
	I want to focus my brief remarks on new clause 4. Some Members will know, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford knows, that there was recently an extremely sad case in Wolverhampton in which a 12-year-old boy, Jamie Mason, was knocked down by a driver who had no driving licence, no insurance, and, I believe, no tax. That boy was killed. That driver was speeding in a suburban area according to the police evidence, and was 50 per cent. over the drink-drive limit, and that boy died. Having pleaded guilty, the driver got a two-month custodial sentence. I, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) in particular, who cannot be here today and who wished this point to be made forcefully, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), find the sentencing powers and the discretion of the magistrates in relation to that case, in which the death of a 12-year-old boy occurred, extraordinary. We find a gap in the law.
	I must say to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who tabled new clause 4, that I do not think that the wording is quite right, but he has identified a gap in the law. Another way to address that sort of issue might be that if someone is driving a motor vehicle, or to use the words of the amendment,
	"a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place other than in accordance with a licence authorising him to drive a motor vehicle of that class",
	such an individual should face a presumption if not an absolute legal certainty that he or she, driving without a licence, is driving carelessly. That would then match up with a new offence of causing death by careless driving, which has been a gap in our law. Under the Bill, there can be three offences of careless driving, dangerous driving or causing death by dangerous driving but not the natural fourth offence of causing death by careless driving.
	In my view and that of my two Wolverhampton colleagues, that is the situation which, very sadly, faced young Jamie Mason. The individual who was driving had no licence. New clause 4 or what I am suggesting now—that someone would be presumed to have been driving carelessly if he or she was involved in an accident and had no licence—would not, of course, bring young Jamie back, but it would at least go some way towards dissuading people from engaging in such activity, and preventing the occurrence of another extremely sad incident of that kind.
	I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give thought to this issue.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) has told a very sad story. We all sympathise with him and his two Wolverhampton colleagues, as well as—of course—the bereaved family.
	It is common during road safety debates for Members to say that deaths could occur in certain circumstances, but I do not intend to take that line myself. Let me first express to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) my support for his new clauses, and explain to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) that I tabled new clause 7 because my constituents wanted something to be done about the dangers involved in using rural roads—especially as pedestrians, cyclists or riders, but sometimes as motorists. I felt that devising and debating a new clause would do no harm.
	There is considerable objection to the concept of national speed limits, because they are seen to take from the motorist the responsibility for making his own judgments about conditions pertaining on a particular road. I sympathise with that view: I believe that it is the responsibility of the motorist behind the wheel of a dangerous missile to decide at what speed that missile is less or more dangerous, and to adjust his behaviour accordingly. However, I also observe considerable concern about the proliferation of a range of different speed limits, and, for that matter, the proliferation of a range of signs on the highway, particularly in rural areas. I refer the Minister to an amendment that I tabled to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 when it was a Bill, which proposed that planning authorities should consult highway authorities on signage in areas of high environmental value, such as areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks and conservation areas.
	Many of us believe, and others have observed, that extra road signs do not make things safer, and that the kind of work so favoured by traffic engineers—establishing barriers around corners so that pedestrians cannot step off the pavement, driving pedestrians into cages before they cross roads, and producing a proliferation of lines and devices on the surfaces of carriageways and on lamp posts and signposts—does not make things easier. In fact, such measures give the motorist the false impression that he is safe.
	I refer the Minister to documents circulated by the British Council of Shopping Centres, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and—this is the one that came to my attention most recently—English Heritage, in association with the women's institutes. They suggested that such signs not only make driving more dangerous because they create a false sense of security in the motorist's mind, but damage the environment. I therefore tried to devise an amendment that would achieve my constituents' objective but not lead to a proliferation of road signs. In the nature of things, that is likely to produce a blunt instrument. That is my explanation to my Front-Bench colleagues of the fact that I propose a national speed limit of sorts.
	My constituents, especially those who ride in the Upton Cross area, have observed increasing traffic speeds among people travelling from Newport to Ryde and avoiding the main road, on which there are a number of speed cameras. That is the situation described earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. Stroudwood road and the other roads in that area are very narrow, only just capable of carrying two lanes of traffic, and there are white lines, or hazard lines, down the centre. Motorists think, "There's a division in the middle, so we can adopt a reasonably high speed." They tend to ignore the high hedges abutting the carriageway on either side, the absence of verges and the fact that, given the many equestrian centres in the area, riders are likely to be crossing, and using, the road. It is said that there are more horses than people on the Isle of Wight; there are certainly more horses than there are small girls to ride them. Riding is not a toffs' sport on the Isle of Wight even if it is in other parts of the country, which I doubt.
	I hope that my new clause can be said to be relatively carefully crafted, and will prevent a further incidence of mad sign disease—the defacing of our streetscapes with lumps of aluminium and plastic, and the defacing of our rural areas as well. First, it establishes what a rural road is. Under subsection (7), a rural road must fulfil three conditions: no speed limit other than the national limit must apply, there must be no street lighting and, most importantly, there must be no white line down the middle. If a local authority wishes to impose a limit, it need only remove the white line. That in itself will tend to make motorists more careful.
	Secondly, I have given the Secretary of State power to designate speed limits for England, and the highway authority power to designate them in respect of a highway authority area, or an area of a principal authority subordinate to that highway authority. That is in subsections (3) and (4). Thirdly, I have proposed that no signage is necessary if there is a national scheme. If there is no street lighting, if there are no markings in the middle of the road and if there is no speed limit, it will be obvious to the motorist that a speed limit designated by the Secretary of State applies.

Rob Marris: It may be more difficult for those of us who live in and represent urban areas to understand entirely what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I thought that we already had such limits de facto. If I go from Wolverhampton to the rural areas of Staffordshire or Shropshire, I see a derestriction sign which means a maximum of 60 mph unless a different limit is posted. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that what I would call a default speed limit should be less than 60 mph, or more?

Andrew Turner: I am suggesting that when the Secretary of State or the highway authorities so decide, the default speed limit should be less than the national speed limit, and that, when the Secretary of State so decides, no signs are necessary, and when the highway authority decides the same—this is covered by subsection (6)—the only sign necessary is one at the entry of the designated area, which shall be coterminous with the area of a highway authority, county council, unitary authority, metropolitan or other borough, or district in a rural area. In all those areas, designation will be by the highway authority. It is really quite simple.
	Let me refer to the eighth point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire. I propose that a highway authority should be able to set a speed limit below that designated by the Secretary of State. Areas differ, and the council of the Isles of Scilly may prefer a lower speed limit than that which is appropriate for some of the roads that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) mentioned.

Rob Marris: May I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his views on the issue may be coloured by the constituency that he represents—which is also where, I suspect, he lives—because it is an island? If I travel westwards from Wolverhampton in my constituency, I cross a peninsula—the southern part of Staffordshire—for approximately 8 km and then enter Shropshire. Under the scheme I understand him to be proposing, when I left Wolverhampton I might see a sign telling me that I was in Staffordshire and that the default speed limit was 50 mph. I then cross into Shropshire, where I might see one sign suggesting that the default speed limit was now 45 mph. If I missed that one sign and carried on driving at 50 mph in Shropshire, I would be doing 5 mph over the speed limit. If that is the system that he is suggesting in the new clause—the one-sign approach—it is a little impractical, and unfair on motorists. If people come from the Isle of Wight they will not know that in Shropshire, the default speed limit is 45 mph.

Andrew Turner: That is a fair point. Perhaps as a former geography teacher, I have an optimistic view of people's knowledge of county boundaries. The boundary of my county is very clear and no one enters it without knowing that they are doing so. As I have said, I tabled the new clause not because I intend to press it to a vote but because I look forward to hearing hon. Members' views and those of the Minister on it. There are considerable differences between different areas, and perhaps I have been unduly restrictive in the signage that I have proposed under subsection (6), but I am deeply aware of the need to avoid a requirement for local authorities to put intrusive road signs every 100 or 200 yd through rural areas. I am talking about rural roads here, not major roads—although I would like those restrictions to be applied to major roads, too.
	That said, I take the view that the new clause is worth tabling and discussing. The proposal would certainly work in rural areas such as Devon, Cornwall, the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly, where the boundaries are clear and well known. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, whose city used to be in Staffordshire and is now only geographically within it, and not administratively. That problem arose following the reforms many years ago, which we were unable to undo. However, the new clause is worthy of consideration and I hope that the House, and the Minister in particular, will give their views on it.

David Jamieson: This debate has been very good and extraordinarily wide ranging. I have seldom seen put together in one group so many new clauses that represent so many different aspects of a Bill, but it has given us a good opportunity—this is almost like a Second Reading debate—to get stuck into some of these important issues.
	New clause 1 seeks to amend section 38 of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 on the unified power for the Secretary of State to fund speed cameras, which enables the Secretary of State to allow for payments to be made to public authorities in the safety camera programme netting off scheme to cover certain costs associated with issuing and enforcing conditional offers from fixed penalty notices for speeding offences. The money to fund the costs is reclaimed from receipts generated by fines. The receipts are passed from the Department for Constitutional Affairs to the Department for Transport, which reimburses the partnerships for approved expenditure incurred. Any surplus generated is paid over to Her Majesty's Treasury in the form of Consolidated Fund extra receipts.
	The new clause seeks to include the funding of educational or training programmes among the allowable expenditure from reclaimed receipts. However, the new clause is not required. The safety camera programme is delivering positive results under current rules on what the funding can be used for, and there is no reason to seek to change the rules that determine what can be funded by that income at present.
	The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred to clause 1. That allows for local authorities to be funded by other revenue streams to enable them to fund the educational and training activities mentioned in the new clause. The safety camera programme has a distinct and different function: to strengthen detection, enforcement and deterrence of speeding and red light offences, which we have not heard much about in these debates, at places on the road network with particular problems. It complements the wider promotion of road safety already provided in the wider funding of the police and local authorities.
	Opposition politicians—often spurring on some of the things we see in newspapers—and critics of the safety camera programme seek to undermine its success in reducing road deaths and injuries by making unfounded allegations that the police and local authorities are using it as a "stealth tax". We did not hear the hon. Member for Christchurch mention those words today, which must be something of a record. The present legislation and the way in which the safety camera partnership works demonstrates that that is not so, since it provides that the programme can be applied only to the deployment of cameras. That means that the police and local authorities have no incentive to deploy cameras for any other reason, however well intentioned they may be. It is important that we maintain public confidence that safety cameras are deployed for one purpose and one purpose alone.
	It is unfortunate that, again today, the hon. Member for Christchurch made out that that was not the case. He used the glib phrase that we have greed cameras, not speed cameras, which will again feed little headlines in newspapers to undermine what the cameras are doing—reducing death and injury on our roads. As I have said, it is particularly children who benefit from that—mainly in urban areas, I have to say. Fewer children are being killed and injured on our roads now. I am very pleased about that. I think that the cameras have made a major contribution to improving the position.
	The hon. Gentleman went on to say that some of the speed awareness and driver improvement courses for those who offend should be funded out of this income, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made the point extremely well: it is the offender who should pay. Effectively, the hon. Member for Christchurch is saying that the offenders course should be paid for by the taxpayer. I do not agree. If someone breaks the law and goes on one of those courses, they should pay for it. It should not be subsidised by the taxpayer.

Andrew Turner: Will the Minister address the point that I raised earlier—whether the penalties should be the same in all parts of the jurisdiction and whether it is not unfair that in some parts of the country, there can be a trade-off between a speed awareness course and a penalty, whereas in others there is no option?

David Jamieson: It is the case that these courses have been pioneered in some parts of the country. Because they have worked so well in certain parts, we want them to be promoted more widely across the country. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Bill puts in place many measures that will ensure that we get consistency across the country, although there should also be some local discretion. I do not want to remove that entirely.
	The hon. Member for Christchurch again alluded to cameras that were in the wrong place or that were not doing their job. We have trodden this ground many times. It was nearly 15 months ago that I challenged one of his predecessors on the Opposition Front Bench to tell us where are the cameras that are in the wrong place. As yet, 15 months on, after many invitations from me, the number of those sites that the hon. Gentleman and his friends have identified is precisely zero. He has not told us of one single site where cameras are in the wrong place—so it would be helpful if he would stop making comments unless he can back them up with solid facts, which he has declined to do so far.
	New clause 2 is designed to make the benefits of a course available not only to offenders whose cases are dealt with by the courts, but to those who have acquired penalty points through the fixed penalty system. I am not unsympathetic to that aspiration in the longer term, but we must proceed gradually.
	I shall explain some of the background, because retraining for road traffic offenders takes different shapes and forms, and there has been confusion about the different schemes in operation. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware that since the early 1990s, the police have dealt with some careless driving offenders by offering them the opportunity to attend a one and a half day driver improvement course at their own expense. They can do that only if the police officers involved believe that the retraining will serve road safety better than a prosecution. If the course is not completed, the prosecution will be pursued.
	Courses are provided in collaboration with the police by independent course providers using the national course model. The management content and applicability of courses are matters for the police and involve the Association of Chief Police Officers, but they have no statutory basis.
	During the past few years, the police in several parts of the country have extended that approach to speeding offenders, which has given rise to a range of speed awareness courses that have been offered in lieu of fixed penalties. Similarly, although those are a matter for the police, the majority of such offences are detected remotely by cameras and the criteria for offering a speed awareness course are more automatic. It is important for the Government to know how well the different courses perform, because they may correct bad driving habits before they become entrenched.
	The Bill is rather different. Its starting point is the drink-driving rehabilitation scheme, which was introduced by the Road Traffic Act 1991 and piloted from 1992 to 1999. The hon. Member for Christchurch may have been involved in introducing that legislation. It is clear from the details that Parliament did not want to allow people who committed offences as serious as drink-driving to have a remission in their disqualification period without rigorous provisions. They included the courts being responsible for the decision to offer a course, ensuring that courses were available and checking whether the offender had successfully completed the course. Before the scheme was adopted nationally, firm evidence was sought and obtained to ensure that it was successful in reducing reoffending. The amendment would encourage motorists to go to court in the hope of avoiding a fixed penalty.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford spoke to new clause 16. I praise his excellent work as co-chair of PACTS—the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. He has a long-standing interest in such matters and is a guiding inspiration to many of us—I am leading up to saying that I cannot accept his new clause. However, speed awareness courses have been adopted by some police forces as an alternative to prosecution for speeding offences. The driver improvement scheme is overseen by a steering group in which key Government Departments, including mine, participate.
	I understand that existing speed awareness courses have evolved in a less regulated way and there have been some differences in practice and some inconsistency in eligibility for courses in different parts of the country, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) said. I am also advised that the position has improved and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford that such matters should be dealt with uniformly and consistently. However, the courses are the responsibility of the police and are offered at their discretion. It would not be appropriate for central Government to step in and regulate them. I am sympathetic to the ideas behind the amendment, but we must allow time for them to roll out and allow ACPO to take the lead in ensuring consistency and rigorous standards.

David Kidney: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind comments about me, but will he at least take a personal interest for a short time in establishing that the police have a grip on the matter and that they intend to ensure that there is a national standard throughout the country? Would his Department be mildly encouraging of every force and safety camera partnership that adopts such schemes?

David Jamieson: I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance.
	The hon. Member for Christchurch hoped that we would accept new clauses 3, 4 and 6 without demur. I am sympathetic to them, but the difficulty is that Home Office consultation is due to finish on 6 May—I do not know whether that date may be of interest to hon. Members—and it would be premature for the Bill to introduce those changes before the consultation has been completed.
	Mt hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) spoke movingly about the case of a 12-year-old boy in his constituency, which shows why we need changes. Although it is difficult in such circumstances, I hope that he will be patient, because we need to consider all offences across the board instead of picking some of them off piecemeal. However, I am deeply sympathetic to the views he expressed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) made the same points. He was right in saying what he did, but some of the penalties may be more onerous that those that are ultimately intended. We must listen to the consultation and then consider the whole package of measures.

Andrew Miller: Can my hon. Friend confirm that after the consultation, the Government's policy is to bring the offences in the three new clauses into legislation?

David Jamieson: That is the intention that was set out by the Home Office. My Department does not deal with the matter, but the intention is that the Home Office will introduce appropriate changes when the consultation has been completed.
	I have some sympathy with new clause 7, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West unpicked the problems rather well. There could be considerable difficulty with enforcement. Reference was made to county boundaries, especially in Devon and Cornwall, and whether they are clear. They are not always clear there—certainly not between Devon, Dorset and Somerset—and that could lead to considerable confusion.
	Speed limits on roads are a matter for local authorities. The approach that I prefer, and which the Government are encouraging, is that local authorities decide the appropriate speed for each individual road and see how many casualties there are. If there are no casualties, there is no need for action, but where there are casualties—they often occur in villages and small settlements—it is in the gift of the local authority to introduce a different speed limit, even as low as 20 mph. Local authorities are doing just that in many areas.
	This is not just a matter of changing the sign on the road and introducing a different speed limit. It is important that any changes are related to other changes, such an engineering changes, a change in the road design or improvement to a junction and so on.

Andrew Turner: Two points arise from the Minister's comments. First, I am sorry to hear him say that if there are no casualties there is no need for action. Pedestrians, cyclists, riders and so on are often driven off the roads because they fear that they may become casualties. That is the evil that we must deal with. Secondly, and far less importantly, I hope that the Minister will deal with the proliferation of signage that appears to be required by his Department when speed limits are introduced.

David Jamieson: If people are being driven off the roads—for example, children cannot walk to school along a road—that is clearly a case for action by the local authority. The need for action may be related not to casualties but to the convenience of local people, if there are no footpaths and the road is very dangerous.
	I have read the views of Commercial Motor on new clause 12, and many others have expressed similar views. I would be sympathetic to new clause 12 if I thought that no increase in danger would result from allowing heavy goods vehicles to travel at 50 mph rather than 40 mph on narrow roads. We rehearsed the arguments well in Committee, and the 40 mph speed limit for such vehicles on a single carriageway is in place for a good reason. Heavy goods vehicles take much longer to stop than cars, and the number of casualties and collisions involving such vehicles on those roads is much higher than it is for cars.
	In new clause 19, the intention is to make the endorsement of licences a discretionary matter for the courts. That still poses several technical problems. It could throw out an entire framework for keeping records of previous driving offences. I do not know whether it is part of the policy of the hon. Member for Christchurch to disregard the problem of repeat offending. It is not clear how he proposes to deal with fixed penalties that involve the imposition of penalty points. If the court thinks that there are special reasons not to endorse a licence, it may choose not to do so, but those special reasons have to be established by case law, which is beyond the scope of the debate today.
	I was interested by what the hon. Gentleman had to say about mobile phones. I am beginning to wonder what the modern Conservative party—if that is not a contradiction in terms—has against road safety and the efforts that we have made to reduce casualties. If people are using a handheld mobile phone while driving, it constitutes a danger on the road. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of whether someone is driving or not. When someone is drunk and in control of a vehicle, that can include standing near the vehicle or sitting in the vehicle with the engine turned off, because we know that in the next few minutes they will not become sober again. That is different from someone who pulls in to the side of the road, turns the engine off and makes a call on a mobile phone.
	As Members of Parliament, we have to be careful about what we say in this Chamber. The hon. Gentleman spoke of a case in which a police officer had gone down a line of cars booking people who were using their mobile phones while the cars were standing still—but when he was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, he could not tell us when or where that happened. If he wishes to intervene and put on the record when that event took place, I will look into it and take the issue up. However, if he cannot say when it was, perhaps he should keep his silence on such matters and avoid putting urban myths on the record. He appears to have no intention of intervening, so it is probably safe to say that that case did not exist and we may dismiss it.

Christopher Chope: No.

David Jamieson: Well, the opportunity is there.
	We have had a useful and helpful debate on a wide range of issues. I thank the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) for his charming and pleasant comments. However, he may have to put up with me for another 15 or 16 months yet.

Christopher Chope: We have had an excellent debate, but I am not persuaded by the Minister's arguments on new clause 1. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made a compelling argument in support of that new clause and we look forward to him joining us in the Lobby later.
	The Minister accepted that new clauses 3, 4 and 6 were worth while, but he prayed in aid the old defence of Ministers—that of prematurity. That does not wash in this case, because the Government set up a review of the offences back in May 2003. The review ran so slowly that it did not report until the end of January, but now the Minister is playing for more time by talking of a consultation period that will end in May. I think that the House has made up its mind that the offences identified in new clauses 3, 4 and 6 should be on the statute book. We cannot test the House's opinion on all those new clauses, but I hope that we will be able to do so on new clause 6, which deals with the most serious offence identified and would send a clear message that people should not drive while disqualified. If they do so, and cause an accident that results in death, they should expect the full force of the law to come down heavily upon them.
	The Minister said that several of the cases that we made are not borne out by the evidence and had a general go about the inappropriateness of our approach to speed cameras. We feel that speed cameras are still too much abused. Too many are in the wrong place. The Minister keeps asking us to specify particular examples, so I shall remind the House of the case last year in which a genuine speed camera was implicated in the death of an elderly pedestrian. Myra Nevett, who was 69, was fatally injured as she crossed a road in Disley, near Stockport. At her inquest, the south Manchester coroner, John Pollard, said that the motorist was apparently distracted by the sight of a speed camera. He said:
	"Cameras are sometimes responsible for distracting drivers, who look at their speed rather than the road. These cameras are a valuable safety measure when properly used, but they are in danger of becoming a hazard."
	Recently, in Dorset, we had a case in which someone who was fed up with speeding motorists outside his house and put up a fake speed camera, which led to a fatal accident nearby. That is another example of a speed camera causing problems rather than solving them.
	Finally, on new clause 19, we believe that scope should be allowed for mitigation of the fine and penalty points. It is not unreasonable that, if there are mitigating circumstances, a driver should receive fewer or no penalty points on their licence. That is the idea behind new clause 19 and I hope that we will have the opportunity to vote on that later. In the meantime, I commend new clauses 1 and 6 to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 271.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 6
	 — 
	Causing Death by Driving whilst Disqualified

'If a person causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place while disqualified from driving by order of a court he is guilty of an offence.'. —[Mr. Chope.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 272.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 11
	 — 
	Secondary Locking Devices

'The wheels of every heavy goods vehicle shall be fitted with a secondary locking devices.'. —[Mr. Knight.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Greg Knight: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 13—Reflective clothing—
	   'The Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52) is further amended, by inserting after section 16 (wearing of protective headgear):—
	"16A   Wearing of protective clothing
	   The Secretary of State shall make regulations requiring, subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the regulations, persons driving or riding in motor vehicles of any class specified in the regulations to wear EN471 compliant reflective garments when leaving the vehicle at a roadside, except where the vehicle is parked.".'.
	New clause 15—Protective headgear for children under 16 riding cycles—
	'(1)   Except as provided by regulations, it is an offence for any person to whom this subsection applies to cause or permit a child under the age of 16 years to ride a cycle on a road unless the child is wearing protective headgear of such description as may be specified in regulations, in such manner as may be so specified.
	(2)   Subsection (1) above applies to the following persons—
	(a)   any person who—
	(i)   for the purposes of Part 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12) has responsibility for the child, or
	(ii)   for the purposes of article 5 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (NI 2)) has parental responsibilities in relation to the child, or
	(iii)   in relation to Northern Ireland has care of the child or is, otherwise than by virtue of article 5 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, legally obliged to maintain the child, or
	(iv)   for the purposes of Part 2 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 (c. 37) has parental responsibilities (within the meaning given by section 1(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 36) (parental responsibilities)) in relation to the child, or has charge or care of the child;
	(b)   any owner of the cycle, if the owner is above the age of 15 years;
	(c)   any person other than its owner who has custody of or is in possession of the cycle immediately before the child rides it, if that person is above the age of 15 years;
	(d)   where the child is employed, his employer and any other person to whose orders the child is subject in the course of his employment.
	(3)   A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.'.
	New clause 18—Amendment of Road Traffic Act 1988—
	'The Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) is further amended, by inserting after section 80 (approval marks)
	"80A   Retro-reflective markings
	   The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument require the fitting of retro-reflective tape complying with ECE 104 to international category vehicles N2 and N3 and on goods trailers under the international classification 03 and 04 newly registered in the UK.".'.
	New clause 21—Amendment of Road Traffic Act 1988—
	'In section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (regulation of construction, weight, equipment and use of vehicles), at the end of subsection (2) insert—
	"(m)   for prohibiting the modification or retrofitting to the front of a motor vehicle any equipment which in the opinion of the Secretary of State may render the vehicle more likely to cause injury to a third party in the event of an accident.".'.

Greg Knight: New clause 11 may seem to some Members to be dealing with a rather obscure point, but the reference to wheels is to road wheels not steering wheels. Although the provision covers a fairly rare occurrence, it is nevertheless a serious problem that some experts estimate leads to 10 fatalities a year on our roads, when lorries shed not their load but one of their wheels.
	I draw the attention of the House to a report in the Daily Express of 23 October 2004. Under the headline, "School run mother of five killed by runaway truck tyre", it stated:
	"A spokesman for Devon and Cornwall Police said its officers were working with Department of Transport vehicle examiners to investigate how the nuts and bolts holding the wheel came free or broke. Several were found at the side of the road close to the spot where the lorry stopped. Police Sergeant Bryan Hancock said: 'Most incidents we attend would involve some element of driving, but this is something that has happened with the vehicle. We are now carrying out an investigation with our vehicle examiners and the Department of Transport, and a report will be prepared for the coroner.'."
	Mr. Mark Louch of the company, Wheelsure, wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) about the incident and the report in the Daily Express to which I have just referred. The letter stated:
	"It is of course inappropriate to comment on the individual circumstances that surround this case. However you should be aware that an incidence such as that described is neither a 'freak' nor 'unexplained phenomenon'. Instead it is highly likely that the wheel-loss has occurred due to vibration nut loosening, an engineering design problem that has beset the transport industry for years. Wheel-nut loosening and wheel loss are frequent occurrences and well known to those who operate professional logistics businesses."
	The letter confirms a point I made a few moments ago, adding:
	"It is estimated by Brake, the leading Road Safety Charity, that up to 10 fatalities each year are caused by wheels flying off vehicles."
	I have first-hand experience of the problem. About eight years ago, I purchased a new set of wheels for a sports vehicle that I owned. As I was approaching junction 10 of the M1, travelling at 70 mph, I suddenly felt a violent vibration from one of the wheels. I managed to stop the vehicle in time and on examining the front wheel I saw that four of the five studs that held it in place had sheered off. It later transpired that that was a wheel design problem and I understand that subsequently the wheel was redesigned. That is not only a frightening experience for the driver, but a dangerous experience for other road users.
	Various hon. Members have raised this issue with Ministers over the years. In 1997, it was raised by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark), who asked
	"when the results of the wheel loss survey . . . will be published."
	The then Minister replied that the Government were looking into the matter, but
	"expect to make these results known by the end of January 1998."—[Official Report, 19 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 353.]
	Also in 1997, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked a similar question, and the then Minister—the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson)—said:
	  "Data on the specific causes of accidents are not routinely collected".
	However, she continued:
	"Following joint discussions with the Vehicle Inspectorate and the Association of Chief Police Officers, a nation-wide survey looking at the extent of the problem of wheel detachment from heavy goods vehicles and passenger vehicles was started in February this year."
	Of course, that was February 1997. She went on to say:
	"The survey has recently finished and the results are being analysed."—[Official Report, 10 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 410.]
	We and, I think, the House would like the Minister to tell us what is the present state of play with regard to the analysis of that problem. Are we any nearer establishing the cause of the problem?
	I am lucky enough to own a 1950s Bentley, which is now regarded as a classic car. Bentley, realising that cost was less of a problem when that car was new, designed it so that the wheel nuts on one side loosen the opposite way to those on the other side. Clearly, Bentley had concluded that, with the movement of the car, it would be safer for some nuts to tighten clockwise and some to tighten anticlockwise, so that the movement of the vehicle would not tend to loosen the wheel nuts on one side only. That practice is not widespread today. Certainly most motor cars in production today do not have that extra safety feature present, and all wheel nuts tighten clockwise.
	Is that safety feature present on heavy goods vehicles? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. Has the lack of such a feature been identified as the reason for the problem? Is an added problem perhaps that wheel studs become stressed, thus lengthening or fracturing?
	We are talking about the loss of life, so we would like a progress report from the Minister. In effect, new clause 11 is probing in nature. I hope that she can reassure the House that the issue is being looked at and that the Government are seeking to reach an early conclusion.

Rob Marris: The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that, certainly until recently—it may still be the case—certain specialist sports cars were produced in north America with left-hand threads for the wheels nuts on one side. Does he agree that it would help if we had some comparative information from other countries about whether such a safety device, in contradistinction to the one directly referred to in new clause 11, were fitted?

Greg Knight: That would certainly be helpful. I have no knowledge of any vehicle with counter-running threads on one side suffering the problem of its wheels loosening. That may well happen in a few cases, but I am not aware of it. I should have thought that producing a vehicle with threads that tighten in the opposite direction on one side would cost relatively little. The House would welcome such a feature if it led to vehicles becoming much safer on the road, particularly when travelling at speed.
	New clause 13 is entirely probing in nature and is intended to tease out from the Minister whether the Government are considering best practice in reducing accidents and considering the experience of other countries. Being a Conservative, I always hesitate to argue for more red tape, especially when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the Cabinet Minister for deregulation, is sitting behind me—[Interruption.] I am sorry; he is a member of the shadow Cabinet, certainly until 6 May.
	Although we do not want to accept the one-size-fits-all attitude of many Labour Members when considering our European partners, we should look at the practices of other countries if statistical evidence has been gathered about them, if only so that we can dismiss them and look for an alternative solution. A similar regulation to new clause 13 forms part of Spanish law. Motorists who travel in Spain must ensure that they have coloured jackets in their vehicles. The regulation applies if a vehicle is stopped, but not parked. For example, motorists who discover that they have a flat tyre on a motorway are required to wear a yellow jacket if they leave their vehicle to replace it.
	I raise the matter against the background that, in the past seven days, a person on the hard shoulder of a motorway in the UK was killed after he and his car were hit by a heavy goods vehicle. Eighteen months ago, there was a widely reported case in which four female passengers who got out of a car that had broken down on the third carriageway of a motorway were killed. Several motorists each year are injured, some fatally, while on the hard shoulder. Unfortunately, not all stretches of this country's motorways have the benefit of lighting.
	I would like to tease out from the Minister what the Government are doing to bring home to drivers how dangerous it is to get out of their vehicles on motorways in the United Kingdom. If she does not intend to follow the practice adopted by Spain, what else is being done to educate drivers about the danger that exists?
	We wait with interest to hear what the hon. Members who tabled new clauses 15, 18 and 21 will say. May I perhaps pre-empt what the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) will say about new clause 21? I think that it has been drafted to address bull bars. Although it is widely accepted that bull bars fitted to a vehicle can be dangerous to pedestrians in certain circumstances, not all bull bars pose such a danger. I understand that one company produces the equivalent of traditional bull bars, but made out of rubber, and people who study such matters have taken the initial view that they make vehicles safer. Additionally, given the number of foreign vehicles on our roads, might not the matter be better addressed internationally rather than unilaterally? I look forward to hearing what the hon. Gentleman will say with interest.

Eric Martlew: I want to speak to new clause 15. Hon. Members might realise that it is similar to a private Member's Bill that I introduced last year, which unfortunately did not get a Second Reading. I have tabled the new clause to try to find out whether the Government have changed their policy on the measure.
	We still have the problem that more than 500 children suffer serious head injuries and more than 36 are killed due to incidents involving cycles each year, but about a third could be saved if they wore helmets. The new clause would require children under the age of 16 who were cycling on a public road or in a public place to wear helmets. Things have changed, however, since I introduced my Bill. Much was made by its opponents, some of whom are here today, of the fact that the British Medical Association did not support it. Since the Second Reading of the Road Safety Bill, the BMA have looked at the issue again, and they support making the wearing of a helmet compulsory for both children and adults. I do not believe that we can make helmet wearing compulsory for adults, because once they are 16 people can make up their own mind. However, it is the responsibility of the Government and the public to protect children.
	When I introduced my Bill, I encountered a great deal of opposition from organisations that sell bicycles. I received many letters, especially from small cycle shops, which have been given misinformation by the Cyclists Touring Club. Since then, Halfords, the largest retailer of cycles in the country, held a board meeting at which it concluded that, even though the measure could affect its business, it would be unethical not to support the Bill. It therefore supports making the wearing of helmets compulsory for children. Hon. Members will remember receiving little cards from the CTC giving seven reasons for opposing the Bill. A complaint was made to the Advertising Standards Authority, which found that many of the CTC's claims were spurious and ruled against the organisation.
	The last time that we debated this issue, therefore, the House and hon. Members were misled. The position has changed, but what we really want is a change in the Government's view. Before I introduced my Bill, there was a great deal of debate about the issue in Cabinet. Some Cabinet Ministers supported the proposals, some opposed them, and they decided that they could not agree. That was a great pity. However, the problem remains. The number of youngsters who are being injured is probably increasing.

Jane Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree with the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust, which is based in my constituency, that between 70 and 80 per cent. of head injuries affecting child cyclists take place off road? If the provision were accepted, we would prevent only a very small proportion of injuries to children.

Eric Martlew: I agree with the trust more than my hon. Friend, who is one of the measure's main opponents. The new clause makes provision for helmet wearing on roads and other public places, because it is difficult to legislate for behaviour off road or on private property, as she knows. That is one reason why we find it difficult to enforce seat belt legislation in such areas. Every year, we allow the equivalent of a primary class of young children to die, because we will not introduce legislation. I am afraid that the Government's policy of trying to persuade the target group of teenaged boys between 12 and 16 to wear helmets is failing. The Minister might be able to give us some figures showing that the number of youngsters in that age group who wear helmets has gone down, despite the fact that a considerable amount of money has been spent on advertising.
	The Government's policy is failing because of peer pressure. Youngsters are saying, "Look at mushroom-head over there". They do not think that it is cool to wear a helmet, even though some of them are extremely well designed. They are pressured into thinking that if they wear one they are a coward. They would therefore like legislation to be passed, because then they could say, "I have to wear a helmet, because it is the law." There is a similar problem with school uniforms. If children are told that wearing school uniform is optional, of course they will not wear it. They will wear trainers and so on. But if it is compulsory to wear school uniform, all the youngsters do.
	I hope that when the Minister responds, she will take into consideration the facts that I have highlighted—that the BMA now supports the compulsory wearing of helmets; that Halfords, the largest cycle retailer in the country, says that wearing helmets is ethically right; that the CTC's propaganda has been discredited; and finally, that the Government's policy of trying to persuade youngsters to wear helmets has failed. Sooner or later, the Government will have to legislate on the matter.

Keith Bradley: As the House knows, I am a member of the Select Committee on Health. We recently produced a report on obesity, and childhood obesity in particular. One of the reasons that we identified for that was lack of exercise. The number of children who walk or cycle to school has fallen because of dangers on the road. Is it not incumbent on all of us to try to increase children's level of activity, and to make children as safe as possible by promoting safer routes to school and the wearing of appropriate equipment, such as helmets, to encourage that activity?

Eric Martlew: My right hon. Friend is right. I was pleased to see that the Select Committee did not fall into the trap of saying, "We know it is unsafe, but if we want fitter children, we should allow this practice to continue." What the Committee wants and what I want is for more children to cycle, but to cycle safely.
	In conclusion, the Minister must realise that the slaughter of youngsters—I do not use emotive language—must stop. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) scoffs. I find that quite distasteful. We must stop the slaughter. The Government have it in their power to stop it, and sooner or later they will do so. Obviously, that will not be part of the Bill, but I hope legislation will soon be introduced to do it.

John Thurso: I shall speak principally to new clause 21 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross), but before I do so, I shall comment on the other clauses grouped with it.
	The first two were introduced by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and described by him as probing amendments. New clause 11 deals with secondary locking devices. I had a briefing some months ago from the company with which he has been in correspondence. As I understand it, the problem, which mostly affects heavy goods vehicles, is that the normal wear and tear of road use could cause a securely and tightly locked nut to become loose through vibration. The secondary device deals with that. I shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say in that regard. The proposal seems straightforward and sensible, if the problem that has been highlighted is, indeed, caused by vibration. It would be interesting to know the outcome of any relevant research.
	New clause 13 deals with reflective clothing. We had an interesting debate on that in Committee. I am not sure that I am ready yet to legislate that everybody should have a reflective jacket in the back of their car. It is bad enough remembering to have the red triangle, although when I broke down outside Edinburgh not long ago, it was a very useful thing to have in the boot of the car. I wonder whether any research has been done to see whether there is a genuine lifesaving impact. I wait to hear the Government's response.
	On new clause 15, which the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has just discussed, I was here when his private Member's Bill was debated, although I was prevented from contributing because the Bill was talked out. At that point, I examined the evidence, and although I fully understood the safety case, I was seduced by the fitness case. Although I did not agree with the hon. Gentleman then, I have since attended many briefings and discussions, and my views have changed.
	The terms in which new clause 15 is couched make it easier to support than the private Member's Bill, some aspects of which I did not agree with—for example, the hon. Gentleman has introduced the important distinction that the legislation will be confined to the road. I have also heard that some of the facts that were adduced at that time were not accurate, so I am moving in his direction.

Eric Martlew: I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Gentleman is addressing new clause 15, but I shall be churlish. On Second Reading, he wrote me a nice letter saying that he had not made up his mind on which way to vote. However, somebody slipped me a copy of a letter that he sent to Liberal Democrat Members, which stated that although the Liberal Democrats oppose the Bill, responses should be couched in personal terms to avoid their looking like part of a campaign. He has now seen sense, for which I am grateful.

John Thurso: That point is not churlish; it is an accurate reflection of the truth. When I wrote to the hon. Gentleman, I had not made up my mind, but I would have opposed the private Member's Bill, had it come to a vote. I gave that advice to my hon. Friends, but I added that they should make up their own minds, because I should not dictate what they should do on such an issue. I also said that my hon. Friends should couch their responses in suitable terms.
	We have not yet discussed new clause 18, which I hope that we reach. At this point, I should declare my non-pecuniary interest as a patron of Reflect. I tabled an amendment on that matter in Committee, so I can safely say that I completely agree with new clause 18.
	As the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire has rightly said, I tabled new clause 21 to deal with the question of the retro-fitting of bull bars, which serve no purpose in this country. Bull bars may have a purpose on safari, but they serve no purpose on the M4.

Rob Marris: Or the A9.

John Thurso: I have never seen a rhinoceros on the A9. Hitting deer is a problem, but it can be dealt with by means other than bull bars, which nobody seriously suggests would help in that situation.
	Turning to the points raised by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, I was fascinated to discover that rubber bull bars are available. If rubber bull bars work and are not dangerous, new clause 21 would not cover them. Given that the vast majority of bull bars in this country are fitted to vehicles as adornments to make a fashion statement, I suspect that wobbly rubber bull bars that do not cause danger will not attract the same adornment value as shiny chrome bull bars, but if they are safe, I have no particular objection to them.
	The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire has raised a serious point about foreign vehicles. I agree with him that this is one of those areas in which the European Union could successfully introduce a helpful pan-European law and would welcome his party's support for such an obviously correct European initiative. However, we should not be deflected from legislating domestically because we may cover a few foreign cars.

Greg Knight: Is not the drafting of the hon. Gentleman's new clause defective in that any vehicle that had, for example, a snow plough attachment fitted to the front would fall foul of his definition? I happen to know of someone in the construction industry who has more than one JCB, and in the winter fits a snow plough scoop on to one vehicle to help him to clear snowbound roads. As I read it, the new clause could oblige the Secretary of State to ban such vehicles.

John Thurso: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point, but I do not agree. I worded the new clause as carefully as I could. That does not mean that it is not defective—it means that it is the best effort that I could come up with. I deliberately did not include a prescriptive list detailing specific equipment, but referred instead to
	"any equipment which in the opinion of the Secretary of State may render the vehicle more likely to cause injury to a third party in the event of an accident."
	I suspect that the Secretary of State would, on balance, be of the opinion that a snow plough, used properly, would not fall into that definition because of the vehicle's likely speed and location. The same might apply to other equipment, as long as it is properly fitted—for example, winches are required on some 4x4 vehicles that are used in the country.
	The fitting of bull bars, however, would be covered by the new clause. We have to take into account the fact that large 4x4 vehicles have become far more popular in urban settings, whereas 20 or 30 years ago they were broadly found where they were designed to be used—in the countryside—and by their very design tended to be suited for that use. Since then, they have been developed as vehicles that are also comfortable to drive on motorways and in towns and are therefore extremely popular in urban use. As I walk to the House from my flat in Pimlico, I pass a school, and at 9 o'clock in the morning it is bumper-to-bumper with extremely large 4x4 vehicles—none of which, I suspect, has ever seen mud in anger. When living at home in the Scottish countryside, I sometimes use a Land Rover and other 4x4 vehicles. I have never seen any working 4x4 on any farm in my constituency that has bull bars. Some have protective grilles in front of the lights—I fully understand why those are in place, and they would be exempted by my new clause—but none has a full set of chrome bull bars of the kind that it is aimed at.

Greg Knight: As the hon. Gentleman appears to be trying to deal exclusively with the problem of bull bars, why does not his new clause refer only to them?

John Thurso: There are two reasons for that. First, it became obvious as we discussed the matter that there would be considerable difficulty in defining bull bars. As is often the case in such circumstances, we may know broadly what we mean, but that is entirely different from defining it in legislation.
	Secondly, although bull bars are the most obvious example of what I am considering, it seemed rather stupid to devise a new clause that dealt specifically with them and might have exempted another piece of kit that could be abandoned equally usefully. Consequently, the new clause was drafted to give discretion to the Secretary of State.
	It is important to consult users and to allow people to present evidence before the Secretary of State makes his decisions. I have also learned a little from considering the odd Bill: it is easier to draft a new clause and let somebody do the work afterwards than to try to get the primary legislation spot on from the start.
	Some 60 per cent. of fatalities and serious injuries occur on roads that have speed limits of 40 or 30 mph. We have often discussed the number of child pedestrians who are killed. Bull bars make the likelihood of serious injury or death that much greater and therefore effectively negate the purpose of the 30 mph speed limit. We all know that the probability of the victim being killed is twice as great at 35 mph as at 30 mph. The lower speed limit is effectively negated by fitting such equipment.
	There is no practical reason why that equipment is required in this country. It is only an adornment and many people who have such items on their vehicles are unaware of the possible consequences. The new clause is therefore reasonable. It gives the Secretary of State the power to make the decision and is not therefore prescriptive. I feel strongly that it could usefully be included in the measure. When we reach the appropriate moment, I would like to test the opinion of the House. I commend the new clause to hon. Members.

David Drew: I want to consider new clause 18. It stands in my name and that of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) but, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) rightly said, he tabled an identical new clause in Committee. I am also pleased to receive the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney).
	Like the right hon. Member for Bracknell and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, I am a patron of Reflect, and we shall continue to advocate the cause of adding retro-reflective tape to heavy goods vehicles because the problem of conspicuity will not go away. Until the Government sign up to regulation ECE 104, all the issues that pertain to that will not be resolved. In passing, I emphasise that I heartily support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), but I intend to concentrate on new clause 18.
	I shall not go through all the debates that have been held on the matter, except to consider the stage that the study, which is looking into the matter, has reached. I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether she has any additional information on that.
	Those who support the change can feel somewhat aggrieved that the usual arguments are used against it. It is argued that the change does not need to be included in primary legislation, yet Italy has done so. It is contended that such a provision would be excessively costly, yet we are considering between £50 and £100, which is not a great sum for those who own or drive heavy goods vehicles to pay to save someone's life. Other arguments focus on whether such a change would be effective.
	No one has proved to my satisfaction that the proposal would involve anything other than a minor change to vehicles. Most heavy goods vehicles, not only the newest, are eligible for it, although it is sometimes argued that it would be easier to introduce it for new vehicles. So the reality is that this would be a minor change, but anyone who drives at night, as I suspect most of us do, knows that coming across a heavy goods vehicle—particularly side-on—that is neither lit not fitted with retro-reflective tags can be highly dangerous. I take that as read.
	I would like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give us some additional information. We were led to believe that the study being undertaken by the ergonomics and safety research institute at Loughborough university should have been completed in February 2005. It would be good to know what results it has produced, and whether any recommendations that it has made are with the Department for Transport. If so, may we have some reassurance—in another place, if not here—that they will be looked at, so that this minor change can be put into place sooner rather than later, through secondary legislation if not through primary legislation?
	Reflect has run a very good campaign on this issue, and many lobby groups have worked very hard on it. This is a very specific and—dare I say it—almost minor issue, but those groups have really put their shoulders to the wheel to get this change introduced. I hope, therefore, that the House will listen to them, that the Minister will provide us with the information that I have requested, and that we can be assured that we shall get some satisfaction on this matter even if the new clause is not adopted, and that the provision can be introduced. We should all feel safer when driving at night if that could happen.

Charlotte Atkins: In replying to the debate on new clause 11, I would like to say that the extent of HGV wheel loss is still uncertain. I know that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) cited Brake's figure of 10 fatalities, and that might well be accurate. However, we are not clear as to the scope of the problem, and we would need to have that information before contemplating any action. Having said that, we are committed to carrying out further research, and that research has been approved by Ministers. It will look into HGV wheel loss, update existing data and explore the current situation on wheel detachment. In particular, it will look at wheel fixing standards and the advantages and disadvantages of directional wheel stud threads and methods of tightening, and carry out an assessment of after-market wheel locking and indication devices. Some of those devices can be misleading, so we need to ensure that we are not going to make the situation worse.
	Research has demonstrated that a major factor in HGV wheel loss is a lack of regular and effective maintenance. Whether devices are fitted—and whether such fitting is mandatory or not—maintenance must remain of overriding importance. Anti-loosening wheel nuts and other devices aimed at preventing, or warning of the imminence of, wheel loss are on the market. At present, our understanding is that they would not totally prevent wheel loss. However, the new research will, among other things, consult various stakeholders on this issue.
	In the Department's view, anti-loosening wheel nuts will not prevent the fundamental problem, which is the loss of clamp force. Research carried out on behalf of the British Standards Institution shows that a loss of clamp force can take place without any rotation of the nut, so the use of locking nuts would not counteract the problem. We need to do more work on this issue before we decide whether the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would solve the problem. It would make matters worse to introduce a system that masked the problem and created confidence that it had been resolved, when in fact the lack of maintenance was the key issue. Further research is therefore needed. For that reason, I hope that the new clause will be withdrawn.

Greg Knight: I appreciate the tone and content of the Minister's reply. First, is she able to give the House some idea of when the research will be complete and of the time scale by which the Government hope to be able to reach a conclusion? Secondly, will she undertake to see that the research is published at that time?

Charlotte Atkins: I am not exactly sure when the research will be available. It will certainly be published, however, and we want to make sure that we investigate the matter in some detail. Although the right hon. Gentleman has expressed his concern about this matter, and it is devastating when it occurs even if it is a relatively small problem, we do not have the information about how often it happens. [Interruption.] I am now reliably told that the research will take about a year. It is therefore important to get it right rather than to dash to some sort of solution. Plenty of products are on the market, but it is not clear whether they will resolve the problem. I repeat that maintenance is the key to ensuring that such wheel loss, with its devastating effects on all concerned, does not occur.
	On new clause 13, I am not aware of the Spanish experience of using reflective clothing or of whether they would have greater ease in enforcing such a measure than we would. Certainly, I support the comments about the requirement for everyone to carry reflective gear—we might even be talking about reflective babygros if we are not careful. This is a serious problem, especially if one happens to be on a motorway, and it is important that people can be seen. Clearly, the new clause relates only to reflective clothing worn when leaving a vehicle, except when it is properly and lawfully parked—effectively, therefore, it relates only to circumstances in which the vehicle is illegally parked. Apart from that, we advise pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists to wear fluorescent clothing during the day and reflective clothing at night, to improve their visibility to other road users. The advice is also contained in the highway code, on which we rely in this country to advise people about how they should behave in such an accident situation. This country adheres generally to the highway code and people see it as the bible in this regard.

Eric Martlew: Would the Minister make representations to manufacturers that such equipment should be included in the boot of new cars when they are sold?

Charlotte Atkins: Certainly, we can consider that. Whether one is carrying the red triangle or appropriate reflective clothing, anything that helps the motorist and their passengers to remain safer after an accident or when they have had to stop for whatever reason is worth considering. Obviously, we are keen to bear down on unnecessary accidents, and on unnecessary injuries, which happen frequently, after an accident has occurred. Our leaflet, "A guide to safer motorway driving", contains advice on what to do when vehicles break down on motorways. We believe that drivers and their occupants are not at great risk when they follow that advice. Basically, the advice to them is to wait on a nearby bank, if they are on a motorway, not on the hard shoulder. We have all heard of awful incidents in which people who thought that they were safe on the hard shoulder were not. I was involved in an accident in which I managed to get my car half on to the hard shoulder, and was then able to get away from the car to safety, having called the police.
	It is important for people to understand what they should do in such circumstances. Others who had been involved in the accident sat in their car, which was very unsafe. If a car had collided with my car, there could have been a huge pile-up.

David Drew: I am not sure that I entirely understand. Is this an insurance issue?

Charlotte Atkins: I am talking about whether it is advisable to accept new clause 13, which would require people to have reflective clothing to wear if they leave an illegally parked vehicle. Following an accident or breakdown, those leaving the vehicle would have to be visible to all concerned. In the highway code, we advise people on motorways—which is where they are probably most at risk following an accident, or when they have had to stop their cars for some other reason—to leave the site of the vehicle, because it will not be the safest of places. If they have reflective clothing, they should wear it when they leave, but we are not currently in a position to suggest that everyone should be required to have such clothing in their cars and to use it in such circumstances.

John MacDougall: Many people who travel to Europe discover that there is a different system there, and find that inconvenient. How compatible can we make our regulations with a general move towards deregulation? Everyone would benefit from consistency.

Charlotte Atkins: We are working hard to secure consistency across Europe, as I shall demonstrate when I deal with the issue of bull bars. Everyone who goes to Europe knows what the rules are. I believe that the red triangle was a requirement in Europe before it was a requirement in the United Kingdom. Most people who take their cars abroad should and probably do consult the regulations to ensure that they are obeying them, but we are working on a range of directives with our European neighbours, and trying to ensure that we level up rather than down when it comes to safety requirements.
	New clause 15 would make it compulsory for children under 16 to wear cycle helmets. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) explained his new clause very persuasively. I am familiar with his arguments because he presented them equally persuasively during the Second Reading debate on a private Member's Bill that he tabled, for which I was present. Members in all parts of the House supported him then, but there were some who disagreed with him.
	This is a passionate issue. Everyone has to be passionate about child safety. Many parents will require their children to wear helmets when they go out on cycles on the road but do not wear helmets themselves, which seems a little odd. Most parents who are being responsible recognise that children are more vulnerable on bicycles than adults and therefore require them to wear helmets. I am certainly one of those parents. I ensure that my daughter has a helmet and wears it. Clearly, the safety of our children on the roads is a very high priority.
	We are trying to increase cycling, whether it be off road or on. Sustrans has done a lot of good work in promoting and building the national cycle network. By 2003, deaths and serious injuries for child cyclists were down by 47 per cent. compared to the mid-1990s, which was our baseline, but we are in no way complacent. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle pointed out that Halfords has now changed its mind about the legislation. That demonstrates that it is taking the issue of cycle safety much more seriously. I hope that that means that it will promote cycle helmets much more rigorously, although I am sure that it does promote them.
	We have ensured that we look closely at the education of children and their carers, put in place better child cycle training and improve the infrastructure. We have also improved the promotion of helmets. I will give some examples of what we have done. The highway code includes a section for drivers on using extra care when driving near cyclists. The practical driving test has been lengthened to ensure that the issue of vulnerable road users is addressed. The theory test question bank includes questions on vulnerable road users and hazard perception testing.
	Probably one of the most important things that we have done is to introduce a new national standard for child cyclist training. Many people remember the old proficiency test. I in my ignorance a few years ago thought that it still existed. Nowadays, most cycling training is done by local authorities and it is patchy. We have brought back the national standard for child cyclist training. We have published "Arrive Alive", a highway code for young road users, which includes a section on cycling. We have worked with Disney on the cycle smart campaign to promote safer cycling among children.
	We know, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, that helmet wearing among boys is far too low. Against the generally rising trend, the wearing rate for boys has gone down from 16 per cent. in 1994 to 12 per cent. in 2002. Inevitably, a large proportion of those not wearing helmets are young adolescent boys and they have accidents. It is a real problem that they do not consider the cycle helmet to be cool.
	I am not able today to accept my hon. Friend's new clause but I give him a commitment, as the Minister who deals with cycling, to continue to look closely at the issue and to ensure that we do our utmost to promote helmets.

Eric Martlew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the time that she has given to the matter and to the thought that she has given to her reply. Unfortunately, not everyone has a mother like my hon. Friend. As she has said, usage among the most vulnerable groups is decreasing, despite the fact that we are spending a lot of money on it. Surely, sooner or later, we will have to say that the policy is not working and we will have to legislate. Other parts of the world have done so and the results are encouraging. The Government have to stop being too timid on the matter. I do not think that it will lose or win us votes at the election. We have to say that this is an issue, this is how we deal with it and this is how we save lives.

Charlotte Atkins: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. The issue is not just about having a law, but about ensuring that we can enforce it. Our position on compulsion is to review the matter and I promise my hon. Friend that I shall take the matter seriously. We must ensure that provisions are workable and that there is no problem with enforcement.

Eric Martlew: I received a letter from the previous Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who said that it would not be a problem for the police to enforce such a provision. Surely it is a matter for the Home Office and not the Department for Transport.

Charlotte Atkins: There is still a problem. If a youngster borrowed a bike and rode it on the road without wearing a helmet, who would be responsible? Would it be the parents of the child who lent the bike? Would schools and teachers be responsible for enforcing the provision, and if they did not, would they be responsible if someone rode a bike on the road without wearing a helmet?
	We are trying to promote cycling to school along cycle routes and along roads, but we want to ensure that people cycle safely. I appreciate the point about helmets. We promote the use of helmets and I am surprised that, given their excellent new design—to my eyes, they look extremely attractive—young adolescents do not think that they are cool. The idea that someone having their head smashed open is cool is ridiculous.
	I cannot accept the new clause. I know that that will disappoint the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, although he will not be surprised. However, I promise to continue to consider the matter and to work with the cycling organisations. We have set up a new cycling body, which will consider a range of initiatives and I hope that it will also consider this matter.
	On new clause 18, I share the concern of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) about retro-reflective tape. The power to regulate the use of that material by statutory instrument is already available under section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, so the amendment is unnecessary. The Department has commissioned a review of the benefits and costs of mandating the use of that material and the right hon. Gentleman referred to that research. He said that it should have been available in February 2005, and he will be delighted to know that it is about to be published—by the end of March. I will place copies of the report in the Library when it is available.
	The review has updated our understanding of the matter and suggested a more favourable cost benefit ratio than the previous research. The Department will now consider how best to take the matter forward. We are making progress. It makes sense to make large vehicles more conspicuous because that increases safety for people who are driving behind or coming alongside such vehicles.
	On new clause 21, the Government take the safety of pedestrians seriously and support a new European directive requiring car fronts to be more pedestrian friendly. It will take effect later this year. We debated earlier whether the new clause would affect snow ploughs. I understand that it would apply only to cars below 2.5 tonnes. Normally, snow plough attachments would be attached to 4x4s, and most of those are above 2.5 tonnes. Therefore, such attachments would not be affected. However, we do not believe that new clause 21 is necessary. Although we do not want to see the unnecessary fitting of aggressive, chrome-plated bull bars to vehicles, and we support action to control such devices, we believe that the vehicle market and, to a large extent, the component market is international—as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire pointed out—and therefore action to control them is best achieved at European level. Car manufacturers selling into Europe have already agreed that from 2002 onward aggressive bull bars will not be fitted to new vehicles. The European Commission has proposed a new directive, which contains strict standards for the design of such devices, both for new vehicles and as separate components. We believe that the directive will effectively ban metal bull bars while permitting devices that are safe, such as the rubber ones that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, which are even safer than the base vehicle itself.

Greg Knight: Can the Minister confirm that she would be prepared to consult on a possible list of exemptions to the directive? For example, where would it leave the 4x4 vehicle that is under 2.5 tonnes and has a winch affixed to the front? Can she confirm that the directive will not be retrospective and would not require any changes to be made to historic vehicles and any adornments they may have on the top of their radiators?

Charlotte Atkins: The directive will not be retrospective, and we will consider any exemptions necessary. The directive is being discussed at present, and it will be put forward very soon. It would then have to be transposed into UK law, using the existing provisions of section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1991. Therefore, no changes to primary legislation would be necessary. We all recognise that such adornments can be dangerous. The press has also focused in recent weeks on those vehicles whose front ends are not safely designed, and the impact that they can have on pedestrians.
	I hope that I have explained why we cannot accept the new clauses, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman not to press them.

Greg Knight: We have had an interesting, wide-ranging and constructive debate. The more I listened to the Minister, the more alarmed I became, because I found myself agreeing with most of what she said. That is always a dangerous position to be in.
	The House accepts that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) spoke from the best of motives and with the best of intent, but the Opposition agree with the Government on that issue. Education on the need to wear helmets must come first, and we hope that public acceptance will follow. None of us would want fewer cyclists to take to the roads because of what they regarded as heavy-handed legislation.
	I was pleased to hear what the Minister had to say about new clause 21 and I hope that we will have the opportunity to consider a list of exemptions. In the light of the discussion that is taking place in Europe, and given that so many car manufacturers are international—with parts for vehicles of different makes supplied by a relatively small number of companies—I hope that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) will be satisfied by the Minister's response.
	On new clause 13, I was pleased and heartened that the Minister suggested that the Government will consider safety measures along the lines of those adopted by our European partners. When I mentioned the new clause in my introduction, I was not suggesting that we should follow the Spanish example. However, there are lessons to be learned from that and I think that the Government should take them on board.
	New clause 11 touches on a matter of ongoing concern to heavy goods vehicle operators and to those who want road safety improved. I am pleased that the Government are pursuing research on this matter. Before we reach any conclusion about what new rules and regulations may be necessary, we need to be aware of the effectiveness of any statutory requirement that we may decide to impose.
	The Minister said that locking wheel nuts were not the way forward and that more research was needed, which she thought would take another year to complete. I hope that she will stay on the case to ensure that there is no slippage, as action needs to be taken as soon as possible. However, the Minister's positive response to new clause 11 means that I shall not press it to a vote.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 17
	 — 
	Vehicle Data Recording Devices

'(1)   A Vehicle Data Recording Device ("VDRD") is a device which records such data relating to the progress and manner of driving of a motor vehicle as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.
	(2)   The Secretary of State may by regulations designate a class or classes of motor vehicles which shall be fitted with a VDRD.
	(3)   The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe—
	(a)   the data which a VDRD must record, and how and by whom and for how long such data must be retained; and
	(b)   the technical specifications of a VDRD.
	(4)   Before the Secretary of State makes regulations under subsections (1) to (3), he shall consult with the Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders and such other organisations as he considers appropriate.
	(5)   The power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument; and a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
	(6)   A person commits an offence if he uses a motor vehicle of a class which the Secretary of State has, by regulations made under subsection (3) designated as a class of vehicle to which a VDRD must be fitted, and that person knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, that the motor vehicle—
	(a)   does not have a VDRD fitted; or
	(b)   has a defective VDRD fitted.
	(7)   A person commits an offence if he knowingly causes or permits another person to use a motor vehicle of a class which the Secretary of State has, by regulations made under subsection (3), designated as a class of vehicle to which a VDRD must be fitted, and knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the motor vehicle—
	(a)   does not have a VDRD fitted, or
	(b)   has a defective VDRD fitted.
	(8)   A person who commits an offence under subsections (6) or (7) shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding Level 4 on the standard scale.
	(9)   A person who does anything with the intention of preventing data being recorded or retained by VDRD is guilty of an offence, unless the motor vehicle in which that VDRD was fitted has been destroyed and he knows that there are no court proceedings likely to be started or pursued.
	(10)   A person who commits an offence under subsection (9) shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding Level 4 on the standard scale.
	(11)   Subsections (6) and (7) shall not come into effect until regulations made under subsections 1 to 3 have come into effect.
	(12)   Data recorded or retained by a VDRD fitted to a vehicle involved in a road traffic incident in which an injury occurs may be used only—
	(a)   for the purposes of bona fide research,
	(b)   by the police or other lawful authorities when investigating the causes of any such accident, or
	(c)   in connection with the bringing of court proceedings (whether criminal or civil) as a result of any such accident, whether or not any such proceedings are in the event commenced, but shall not be used for any other purpose.'. —[Rob Marris.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Rob Marris: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 20—Road Accident Investigation Service—
	'(1)   Within 12 months of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall by regulations establish a Road Accident Investigation Service ("the Service") which shall—
	(a)   investigate the causes of road accidents particularly where they result in death or serious injury,
	(b)   commission and publish the results of research into the causes and consequences of road accidents, and
	(c)   make recommendations to the Secretary of State.
	(2)   Regulations under this section may provide for the organisation, operation and powers of the Service.
	(3)   The Secretary of State may make financial provision for the Service.
	(4)   The power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.
	(5)   No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

Rob Marris: New clause 17 addresses a matter that may be familiar to some hon. Members. However, it may be less familiar to others and to those outside the House who follow our debates. That is why I shall start at a level that some may consider to be somewhat basic.
	Many vehicles sold in the UK and around the world now have on-board computers, which are said to be more powerful than those used in the 1969 Apollo mission to the moon. They record various information and sometimes govern—through electronic traction controls and anti-lock braking systems, for example—how a car can be driven. I shall return to that in a moment, but the computers are also sometimes called black boxes—a term that will be familiar to the House, as it is often used in connection with aircraft. The new clause calls such an instrument a "vehicle data recording device", and I take this opportunity to thank the Slower Speeds Initiative for its help with this matter.
	Many data recording devices are linked to air bags, which were introduced in 1974 and are now incorporated in every new car sold in this country. They have become very sophisticated and no longer expand when a car goes over a bump in the road, for example. New technology controls the extent and speed of an air bag's inflation, according to external information gathered by sensors and fed into the black box. Air bag sensors log pre-crash speed, engine revolutions per minute and accelerator and brake pedal positions. They can also detect whether a driver's seat belt was fastened and whether a car was started after the air bag had been deployed.
	Interestingly, the sensors also monitor minor impacts that do not trigger inflation. The sensors are very sensitive, and take fresh readings of speed and control pedal positions, for example, every five seconds. They store that information for up to 60 days, but some sensors and computer chips in cars are now so sophisticated that they can detect and store a lot more data.
	The National Transportation Safety Board in the US wants the fitting of such sensors and black boxes to be mandatory for all vehicles by 2009. The latest figures I have are for about a month ago, when 15 per cent. of vehicles in the US had been fitted with these devices. They have been used for prosecutions both in America and in Canada—a point to which I will return.
	Some people are concerned about the cost of these black boxes.

Greg Knight: The scope of the hon. Gentleman's new clause would appear to allow the Government to order the retrospective fitting of these boxes to vehicles currently on the road. Is he arguing for that, or only for fitting them to vehicles that have yet to be manufactured?

Rob Marris: Unusually, in a sense I am arguing for both. I am not seeking for the Government the power to retro-fit black boxes, but the new clause would allow them to access information contained in black boxes already to fitted to vehicles. So this is a question not of retro-fitting but of future fitting to vehicles that do not have them, and the retrospective accessing of information from vehicles on the road that already have such boxes.
	These devices cost between £200 and £300, which is a lot of money in vehicle manufacturers' terms but perhaps not so much in safety terms. I stress that the new clause relates only to impacts causing injury; such a device would not be a Big Brother in the cab that could be used, pursuant to the new clause, to "do" people for speeding. The police, accident investigators acting on the state's behalf in criminal prosecutions and those wishing to pursue civil proceedings could interrogate the information in a black box only when there has been an injury following a collision. That is a key point in terms of public acceptance.
	Norwich Union is already giving insurance discounts to certain drivers in a pay-as-you-drive scheme that uses such technology to determine how many miles they are driving, at what time of day, and so on. Under the terms of such a policy, the person in question agrees not to drive between 11 pm and 6 am. The technology is already being used by the private sector, and it is being introduced by motor manufacturers not for vehicle safety reasons in the sense of preventing and investigating accidents, but in order to prevent injuries such as those relating to airbags, to which I have referred.
	I mentioned cases in north America in which such information has already been used. According to Maclean's magazine of 22 March 2004—for those few Members who do not know, it is a weekly Canadian news magazine—
	"Eric Gauthier, 26, was convicted of dangerous driving after the data recorder for the airbag in his Pontiac Sunfire proved he was driving 154 km an hour—three times the limit—seconds before he hit another car, killing its driver. This is the first . . . case in which a car's black box evidence was accepted in court."
	More than a year ago, the Canadian authorities were using such information for criminal prosecutions. In Ontario it has been used since the late 1990s.
	The Department for Transport does not know whether such information is being used for prosecution in this country, but I suspect that it is not. I asked a question for written answer last year—addressed to the Home Office, not the Department for Transport:
	"To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many road traffic prosecutions used evidence based on black box vehicle data recorders to indicate the speed of the vehicles involved in (a)  2002 and (b)  2003."
	The Home Office did not know—although to be fair to the Minister concerned, I must explain that the exact answer was:
	"The information is not collected centrally."—[Official Report, 26 April 2004; Vol. 420, c.765W. ]
	During the last Session, I tabled early-day motion 1186 on that very issue, expressing disappointment, and it seemed to me that the Road Safety Bill would be a very appropriate means by which to introduce a new clause on the subject.
	Data collected from black boxes could be used for criminal and civil proceedings following an accident in which injury occurred, pursuant to my new clause. Such data could also be used for some medical purposes and for research and crash prevention. I have referred to the court proceedings angle, but for medical purposes, the data from black boxes could be used retrospectively in trauma research to improve injury predictions, support decisions about service provision and improve the responses of emergency services to crashes and so forth. A study showed how measured
	"crash direction and force data can markedly improve injury prediction, algorithms, biomechanics, cost of injury research, and identification of problem injuries".
	That was a quote from a study by R. Martinez in 2003—"Medical Use and Emergency Response, SAE Vehicle Recorder Topical Technical Symposium"— from a symposium of June 2003 in Virginia USA.
	The data could also be used for road safety research, as well as the medical research to which I have adverted. It could be made available to bona fide researchers, as the new clause would allow, to improve the understanding of the "crashworthiness" of vehicles and the potential for crash avoidance. The data will help researchers find out what went wrong before a crash—perhaps a Gautier going at 154 kph in a 50 kph zone in Montreal. The quality of crash investigation statistics could improve substantially, which also ties in with new clause 20 in the same group.
	We need to bear in mind that cars change. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), having been a solicitor, will remember that when road traffic accidents led to injury, the police used to go out and measure the skid marks. That used to provide some indication, usually within about 10 or 15 per cent., of the speed at which the vehicle was travelling before the brakes were applied. It would then be possible to measure the point at which perhaps a child had been knocked down. With anti-lock braking systems, that can no longer be done, because those systems, which are fitted to most cars sold in the UK today and have been fitted to many for several years, stop the wheels from locking. There are no longer any skid marks, so information that used to be vital to the police in investigating road traffic accidents is no longer available. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford nodding in agreement. If black boxes were fitted to every new vehicle, and if the information in those already fitted to vehicles on the road were made available to crash investigators, it would help with prosecutions or civil proceedings, and also with research and crash prevention.
	An analogy could be made with tachographs in heavy goods vehicles, which have been around for years. There is some evidence that drivers who are aware that black boxes—vehicle data recording devices—are fitted to their vehicles actually drive more carefully. The Metropolitan police conducted a study and attributed a 25 per cent. reduction in crash rates to a safe driving programme that included the fitting of VDRDs. I appreciate that that poses the question of how much of the 25 per cent. improvement was due to the safe driving programme. An awful lot, I suspect, but some of it could have been connected with the fact that the drivers were aware of the black boxes within the vehicles. A Dutch study of driver response to black boxes used in several vehicle fleets estimated a crash reduction of 20 per cent. Again, that is not necessarily cause and effect, but one starts to see a correlation. A German study of young drivers found that awareness of a black box being fitted to a vehicle forced a change in driving habits and made the young drivers much safer.
	Clearly, we are talking about a potentially important safety device and the technology is already there. Black boxes are already fitted to many vehicles and the practice of fitting them is likely to become more widespread. As far as I can determine, however, the information is not accessible to researchers, investigating authorities or the courts. The problem is that standards differ between different motor manufacturers who sell vehicles in the UK. Understandably, for data protection reasons, those manufacturers are reluctant to allow anyone access to the information contained in the black boxes that they have fitted to vehicles.
	The UK Government should take a lead within the EU on the issue of vehicle data recording devices. Pursuant to my new clause, or something like it, we should specify a date, perhaps 2009, by which all vehicles sold in the United Kingdom would have to be fitted with vehicle data recording devices and access would have to be permitted to the software in those devices.
	As one of the 25 member states of the European Union, we should be pushing for such initiatives to be taken across the EU. It is certainly the case that with some EU countries we would be pushing at an open door. To set a date of 2009—four years hence—may seem to give only a short time for the development of such sophisticated technology but we are in no way starting from scratch. The technology exists; it is already being used in other countries and is increasingly being fitted to cars. I urge the Government to consider seriously my new clause, or something like it, so that we can get a move on and save lives. If people change their driving habits and/or we can obtain information that allows better crash investigations and better medical investigation of the injuries sustained in crashes, so that we know how the injuries came about because we know more about the crash, we shall lessen injuries and save lives.
	The new clause is simple and, I hope, fairly straightforward. It includes penalties for people who interfere with the devices—because, sadly, in this day and age one has to do that. However, the thrust of the new clause is to get the Department for Transport, working with other Departments, to make mandatory the fitting of VDRDs—so-called black boxes—to all new vehicles from a given date, which I hope will be 2009, and to allow access to data that is already being gathered from the black boxes fitted to many vehicles in the UK.

John Thurso: I rise to speak to new clause 20, which would create a road accident investigation service. I have done my best to draft the provision in a way that the Government will find acceptable—a forlorn hope, but I keep trying.
	The new clause states that, within 12 months of the coming into force of the Act, a road accident investigation service will be set up, which would, first,
	"investigate the causes of road accidents particularly where they result in death or serious injury".
	Secondly, it would
	"commission and publish the results of research into the causes and consequences of road accidents, and . . . make recommendations to the Secretary of State".
	The rest of the new clause would permit the Secretary of State to set up the necessary administration to achieve that end.
	I realise that the new clause may not find favour with the House or the Government, but the subject is serious. The proposal is really a probing amendment. The reason for it is that for all other modes of transport there is a body to investigate accidents, look into their causes and make recommendations. When we discuss road accidents in Westminster Hall, in Committee, as we did on the Bill, and in the Chamber, people often refer to statistics showing that, in terms of casualties, the equivalent of a major rail crash occurs almost daily on our roads. It is thus important that we can establish accurately not only the primary cause of an accident but also the contributing factors.
	When I debate with people outside the House whether speed cameras and other measures are effective, I notice that those in favour of a measure will use all available data to prove, for example, that speeding is a major contributory factor, while other people will argue that the road engineering of a particular stretch of road is the problem, or whatever it may be. In many cases, the answer is that there is no single, overriding factor that is the sole cause of an accident. Often an accident may have a primary cause, but other factors contribute. We do not always hold a proper investigation of accidents so that we can build up a picture and a pattern based on evidence.
	I am interested in new clause 17, tabled by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), and the concept of using a black box, because that would fit neatly into new clause 20 and the ability to base what we do on scientific and engineering analyses of what is actually happening. For example, we might win the battle with those few remaining doubters in respect of speed cameras if we could say, "Here are 10 accidents. Here is what has happened. Here are the primary factors. Here are the contributory factors. This is why it is a good idea to put a camera in a certain location."
	We might also be able to consider how often accidents are caused by the state of the vehicle. I do not know, for example, whether our current MOT certificate laws, which we all take for granted, are as up to date as they should be. It would be interesting to know whether the quality of modern cars is such that the number of those accidents has diminished since the passage of that legislation. I simply do not know and I am not sure whether that information is readily available.
	A body that exists specifically for investigating accidents, commissioning research and making recommendations would be a very useful start in the fight for greater road safety. I have been told that one argument against such a body is the question whether it would fit in with the police. How would it cut across what they might do? If one considers what happens with rail or marine accidents, where accident investigation branches exist, the function of the police investigation is to determine whether there is criminal responsibility.
	The involvement, as may happen in some cases, of health and safety investigators in no way prevents the accident branch for that mode of transport from undertaking its work. In practical terms—for example, with a rail crash—police arrive and look at their bit and the health safety people arrive and look at what they are interested in, after which the accident is handed over to the rail accident investigation branch for full investigation.
	Such a body need not be large or particularly costly. A great deal of its work would involve collating information, but it could make a positive contribution to road safety. I will not press new clause 20 to a Division, but I hope that the Government will consider whether there is not some merit in it.

David Jamieson: First, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) on the way that he moved the motion and his thoughts on new clause 17, which are profound. He has thought through the issues carefully. The new clause would provide for the installation of electronic recording devices in road vehicles with the purpose of capturing data about the behaviour of the vehicle's driver and certain functional parameters of the vehicle. In the event of an accident involving injury, the use of such data would be restricted.
	Such technology would offer benefits in research and accident reconstruction—there is little doubt about that—but it may be viewed as unacceptably intrusive with respect to the driver. In circumstances other than those of an accident that involves injury, it is not clear what, if any, use of such data is, or could be, envisaged. Indeed, there may be human rights concerns. In particular, the right to respect for private and family life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights may apply to provisions that, by a combination of requirements and offences, seek to ensure that data relating to a person's movements and actions are recorded and possibly made accessible to others.
	We need to do some more work on how some of the data collected under new clause 17(12) could be used in circumstances other than an accident having taken place. If such data were to exist, a court could subpoena someone to provide that information, but the investigation might not relate to a specific collision on the road or any research being conducted on an accident.
	I know that there is significant interest in such devices. Consultation has recently taken place in the United States with vehicle manufacturers about the voluntary fitting of a standardised recorder. The European Commission has just let a research project to evaluate their possible usefulness. The research will consider competing technologies, their compatibility with all classes of vehicles and their usefulness in accident reconstruction. The two-year programme will review the legal implications for their use in litigation, both at European and national level. It will conclude with recommendations on the possibility of establishing European law on the fitting and approval of these devices within the European type approval framework. The recorders are likely to rely on data provided by other vehicle systems and their construction will be governed by international regulation. It is thus important for due consideration to be given to the compatibility of any future device. As I have said, the topic is on the agenda in the international arena and I believe that that is the most appropriate place to develop such standards.

Greg Knight: What will be the British Government's position on retrospection in the ongoing discussion? I declare an interest at this point, but such recorders would not be necessary or desirable for historic vehicles.

David Jamieson: The right hon. Gentleman's pre-war Rolls-Royce will probably survive having such a device fitted to it—the figure on the radiator will probably not be affected either. Older classic vehicles are seldom used on the road and have a low mileage. They are usually driven in special circumstances, so they are not used routinely for commuting or to cover long distances. He will know that the number of collisions involving such vehicles is extremely low, mainly because they go slowly and their drivers treat them preciously because they fear that they might get bumped or scratched. I hope that my points have helped my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and I am grateful to him for raising the subject.
	On new clause 20, I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) that the thorough investigation of road accidents is a critical foundation of our effort to reduce casualties. However, the measure tends to ignore the scale and nature of road accidents and existing arrangements for investigating them.
	There are significant differences between the investigations required for road accidents and incidents involving other modes of transport. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the number of deaths on the roads. In 2003, 3,247 incidents resulting in a fatality occurred on the roads, although there were obviously more fatalities than that because several accidents involved more than one person. That figure alone is indicative of the significant resources that would be involved in the investigations that he suggested.
	The difference between road casualties and rail, air and sea casualties is that most road casualties are caused by an individual human failing, rather than the failure of equipment or procedures. I know from the maritime investigations in which I have been involved that they generally examine the failure of equipment or procedure, but such an investigation would not be appropriate for a road accident. Road incidents are almost entirely due to a failure of some sort on behalf of the driver of a vehicle or others driving near them. Aircraft are almost entirely controlled by equipment, so in the rare circumstances in which there is a casualty involving an aircraft, that is almost always due to an equipment failure rather than human error. The difference between the causes of such incidents explains why their investigation requires a different approach.
	The police undertake a thorough investigation of all road incidents that lead to death and most that lead to a serious injury. In the past three years, they have undertaken a manual procedure of investigation. Some people say that that is too onerous and prevents the road from being cleared quickly enough, but the individuals involved and their relatives naturally want a thorough investigation.
	The police investigate fatalities and treat the scene as if there has been a suspicious death. There is a thorough investigation and police forces and local authorities share information and look at patterns of road casualties. They consider whether engineering improvements are needed or whether people need to be educated locally. My Department maintains a national database of road accident statistics and uses the data to inform research studies and policy development. The data also help us to check that we are delivering our target for reducing deaths and injuries on the road. Finally, we have in hand several research studies that are considering the factors that contribute to accidents. That research is used to shape policy that is much more likely to lead to improved road safety. Although I am sympathetic to the general thrust of new clause 21, I am not sure that a formal organisation to investigate road accidents is appropriate, so I urge the House to resist the measure.

Rob Marris: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his thoughtful response. I am glad that the Government recognise the benefits of vehicle data recording devices and interested to hear of the European Union research that will be completed within two years.
	As my hon. Friend pointed out, information from the devices may be intrusive, and we must consider how the data that are recorded may be used. As a non-practising solicitor in civil law, I can tell the House that sooner or later someone will deploy what used to be called discovery—it is now called disclosure under the civil practice rules—to gain access to information. A defendant driver must produce it because, legally, the information on the black box is a document for the purposes of disclosure. It may not be accessible within matrimonial proceedings to see whether or not someone was in Brighton on a Saturday night, but it may be used to see whether they were driving a car at a certain speed and caused someone an injury. Once the lawyers get their act together, cracks will appear in the dam of privacy as a result of civil proceedings.
	The compatibility of devices, both within the EU and across other continents and countries, is important. However, I must stress to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) that the devices already exist. I am not suggesting that they should be used for purposes other than those set out in proposed subsections (12)(a)(b) and (c) of my new clause. I am not suggesting—and I do not think that any of the measure's proponents have done so—that legislation should be passed to retrofit devices to vehicles that are already on the road. If we introduced the measure with a commencement date of, for example, 2009, there would be three types of vehicle on the road. There would be vehicles without a black box, vehicles manufactured before 2009 that had been fitted with a black box and would be susceptible to accessibility regulations made by the Secretary of State and, from 2009 onwards, new vehicles to which it would be mandatory to fit black boxes. There is no question of retrofitting—it is a question of recognising that a growing proportion of vehicles already have black boxes, which have safety benefits for road users and for research on road safety. As discussions and research are under way in the EU, it would be premature to pass legislation tonight to deal with the issue. I am glad the Government have the matter in hand and hope that they continue to push for further progress in the EU. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 19
	 — 
	Amendment of Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

'Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 shall be amended by substituting the word "discretionary" for the word "obligatory" in column 6.'. —[Mr. Chope.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 273.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 21
	 — 
	Amendment of Road Traffic Act 1988

'In section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (regulation of construction, weight, equipment and use of vehicles), at the end of subsection (2) insert—
	"(m)   for prohibiting the modification or retrofitting to the front of a motor vehicle any equipment which in the opinion of the Secretary of State may render the vehicle more likely to cause injury to a third party in the event of an accident.".'. —[John Thurso.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 387.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 14
	 — 
	Alcohol Ignition Interlocks

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 17, line 27, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate national authority'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Clause 27
	 — 
	Disqualification until Test is Passed

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 37, line 23, at end insert—
	'(   )   Omit subsection (14) (no order to be made under subsection (3) after end of 2001 unless one previously made).'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Clause 35
	 — 
	Extension to Scotland and Northern Ireland

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 41, line 29, leave out from 'of' to end of line 36 and insert
	'notice under Part 7 of the Magistrates'
	   Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.
	   For the purposes of the time limit for bringing an appeal under subsection (1) the appeal is to be treated as brought—
	'(a)   in England and Wales, on the making of the complaint,
	(b)   in Scotland, on the lodging of the summary application with the sheriff clerk, and
	(c)   in Northern Ireland, when a notice is served on the clerk of the petty sessions under Article 76(2)(a) of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Clause 44
	 — 
	Private Hire Vehicles in London

John Horam: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 47, line 43, after 'passengers', insert '(a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in page 47, line 43, at end add
	'and
	(b)   at end insert "or a vehicle which solely provides services to public authorities.".'

John Horam: The amendment seeks to remove a piece of massive over-regulation from the Bill. Under the clause to which the amendment refers, particular vehicles are caught whose sole purpose is to take special needs children from their homes to the schools of their choice. That will mean that the drivers of those vehicles, who are often part-time or offering their services voluntarily, will have to have a public service vehicle licence. Consequently, many of those people will not be willing to carry on undertaking that important social task. Therefore, the companies who are solely under contract to local authorities will not be able to carry on. A sensible long-standing arrangement, which is welcomed and widely used in many areas—and particularly in my area, Orpington—whereby such vehicles have a sole contract with the local education authority, will have to be brought to an end, to everyone's loss.
	The Minister, in Committee, said that he had a heartfelt concern about the problem and that his only worry was that there might be abuse. In the particular case of which I am thinking, which relates to P & J Travel in my constituency, there can be no abuse because the vehicles are used only for the purpose of taking special needs children from home to school. Therefore, I recommend to the House this excellent amendment, on which I hope we have the opportunity to vote.

Charlotte Atkins: I wonder what the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) thinks of this amendment. When he took the relevant private Member's Bill through the House, he was definitely of the view that he wanted to close all of what he considered to be loopholes. Clearly, I appreciate that the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 has been immensely valuable. It introduced stringent suitability checks on operators, drivers and vehicles. To introduce this loophole would open up gaps that we would want filled. The exemption from licensing, which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) wants to introduce, was deliberately omitted from the 1998 Act, even though that situation does not exist outside London. It therefore seems perverse to suggest that we should open up this loophole when the Act was originally planned to ensure that there was no such loophole.
	I appreciate, of course, that public authorities using unlicensed operators, drivers and vehicles would do their own suitability checks. I have concerns about that approach, however, bearing in mind that we are talking about very vulnerable people, including special needs children being transported in such unlicensed vehicles. I worry about whether the checks would be suitably robust. The responses to the consultation on this proposal also raised concerns about the thoroughness of checks. My understanding is that if a driver had been checked, but then went off sick, someone else could take his place and that person would not have been vetted.
	There is also the issue of fair competition. Clearly—
	It being Six o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [11 January].

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 258.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the remaining Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Schedule 1
	 — 
	Giving of Fixed Penalty Notices by Vehicle Examiners etc.

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 59, line 7, after 'clerk', insert', in both places,'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Schedule 3
	 — 
	Endorsement: All Drivers

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 71, line 40, at end insert—
	'(4)   In the heading, for 'Counterparts issued to' substitute 'Information about'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Schedule 4
	 — 
	Driving Instruction

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 89, line 38, leave out from 'above' to end of line 43 and insert
	'"relevant prescribed condition" means—
	(a)   in the case of a registered disabled instructor, a condition prescribed under section 125A(7) of this Act, and
	(b)   in any other case, a condition prescribed under section 125ZA(3) of this Act.'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Schedule 6
	 — 
	Repeals and Revocations

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 108, line 19, leave out '2, paragraph (bb)' and insert '3, paragraph 2(bb)'.
	No. 8, in page 116, line 36, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 'Road Traffic Offenders Act   Section 36(14).'. 
			 1988 (c. 53)—Mr. Jamieson.] 
		
	
	Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

David Jamieson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. The Government are committed to reducing death and injury on Britain's roads. We have long had a strategy for achieving that and last year we updated it. We are making good progress towards our targets, but we take nothing for granted.
	In 2000, we set ourselves a target to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads by 40 per cent. and to reduce the number of children killed and seriously injured by 50 per cent. Overall, we have achieved a 25 per cent. reduction, but for children the result is better and we are more than three quarters of the way towards achieving our target. That has been due to the efforts of many people, not only the Government but local government, the police and the many voluntary organisations that contribute to improving road safety in many ways. Nor should we forget the engineers and others who design and build our roads. All those people have played a part in reducing casualties.
	I am proud to say that we have done well in this country and that that is now recognised across Europe. We have one of the best records in this area, and other countries in Europe, and even in other parts of the world, are looking to us as a model on road safety. Our record compares with the best in the world, such as Sweden, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

Mark Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend the Minister is right in what he says about this country's record and I pay tribute to his contribution to that. The Bill will allow the Secretary of State to introduce graduated fixed penalties, and that is generally accepted. However, there is concern about the possible reduction from three to two points for speeding in a 30 mph area. That issue was raised in Committee and my hon. Friend agreed to reflect on it, so can he reveal his current thinking on the issue?

David Jamieson: My hon. Friend has pre-empted some of the comments that I was about to make. As he knows, a discussion note was issued in September, inviting comments on some of the benchmark ideas for the graduated scheme. We made it clear then—and it is evident in the Bill—that the structure will be the subject of further consultation and debate in the House. So far, the debate has largely concentrated on the argument that the two-point penalty should not be available to people who break the 30 mph speed limit. Views are divided on the issue and we want to hear further views from the statutory consultation before we lay further orders on the issue.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend's role in the progress that has been made should indeed be recognised. However, although the figures are heading in the right direction, some 100 people are still killed or seriously injured every day. Does my hon. Friend think that serious attention will be given in the future to lower alcohol limits, lower speed limits in residential areas, random breath-testing and other such initiatives? More progress could be made.

David Jamieson: As my hon. Friend says, some 100 people are killed or seriously injured each day. The number of people killed on our roads has remained static for the past few years, but the rate is falling because we now have more traffic on the roads. The number of people who are seriously injured is falling dramatically and I am delighted that that is especially true for children. I am pleased with the progress that we are making on that issue.
	Interestingly, the static number of deaths has been a cause of concern in other countries with good records. The number of deaths a year has levelled off in the Netherlands and Sweden, and a similar trend is emerging in France and Germany. The figures come down so far, but it is then difficult to get them down further. The serious injury rate is falling, but we still face serious challenges in reducing deaths on the road. One concern is the number of deaths on two-wheelers. Had the number of deaths for people riding two-wheelers not risen, there would have been a reduction in overall deaths last year.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) asks about the alcohol limit. My concern is not so much the 80 mg limit, but the small hard-core minority who drink well beyond that limit and then drive. They are the people who are causing the casualties, not—as a rule—those who have drunk just over the limit. The overwhelming majority of people in this country take this matter seriously and are conscientious about not driving after drinking. That is true of the vast majority of younger people, as well as of those who belong to the older generation.
	We want local authorities to reduce speed limits on their roads and to use engineering to make roads safer, especially in rural areas. Again, the number of casualties on those roads has reached a plateau. My message is that a lot is being done, but that—my goodness—a lot more needs to be done.

Andy Reed: My hon. Friend the Minister will recall that I raised the question of graduated penalties in Standing Committee. The House will know that the outcome when a person—and especially a child—is hit by a car travelling at 30 mph is very different from what happens when the car is travelling at 40 mph. The difference is so significant that we must not send out the signal that penalties will be reduced for people driving between 30 and 40 mph. In the consultation process, will he take the very strong message from me and my constituents that we must not give out that signal?

David Jamieson: My hon. Friend repeats a point that he made very powerfully in Committee. We are very aware of the debate that is taking place on this important matter, both in this House and outside. Those who want to change the status quo must make their views known, but we need a sensible and vigorous debate in the next stage of the consultation so that we can get the matter right. We can talk and think about the issue, but the important thing is to get it right in the end.
	I hope that we might even get some cross-party consensus on whatever is ultimately achieved in that respect. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) perked up at those words, but the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is still looking at his notes. We can read what we like into that.
	New primary legislation has never been a prerequisite for road traffic laws, and other laws form an important part of road safety policy. Not all problems call for a legislative solution, but that is an element of the strategy whose time has come. The Bill presents a package of measures which, taken together, will make an important contribution to achieving our goal.
	Most of the measures in the Bill have been public knowledge for some time. They have been examined in some depth, not least by road safety experts and lobby groups. They have also benefited from careful scrutiny by the Select Committee on Transport, and I see that the Committee's Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), is in her place. We very much welcome the views expressed by the Committee, and I dare say that it will express further views in future. Moreover, the Joint Committee on Human Rights offered additional advice in its eighth report, which we are now considering.
	Over the past year, speeding has been the subject of one of the biggest debates in connection with road safety, and the Bill contains various provisions to tackle the problem. One of them is educational, in the sense that speed offenders might, in certain circumstances, be referred by a court of law to undertake retraining courses. However, we need sticks as well as carrots, and the proposals for a graduated system of fixed penalties deserves careful consideration.
	The focus on speeding may have caused some to overlook that fact that the graduated fixed-penalty proposals will apply to offences other than speeding. They will be especially useful in commercial operations, in which the police and the Department's vehicle inspectors, furnished with new powers by this Bill, will be able to enforce more effectively against roadworthiness offences.
	Other provisions in the Bill contribute to better enforcement, in some cases through better or more streamlined administration. However, the modernisation of administrative practices is also behind many proposals governing licensing and testing. All the proposals help to plug gaps in the system, and will contribute to improvements in road safety.
	The Bill has made positive progress through the House. We have had some very good and sensible debates both in this House and when the Bill went Upstairs. It has been an instructive process, giving us food for thought for the future in important areas, and I am grateful to Members from all parts of the House for their contributions during the Bill's passage. It is a good Bill and it should command support both in this House and outside it. I commend it to the House.

Christopher Chope: I am most grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has conducted the Bill's passage in Committee and through this House. I should also like to say how much we will miss him when he retires from this House at the coming election. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), is obviously getting cold feet about her own constituency, because she seems to be saying that she hopes that the general election is 15 months away. We will find out in due course. I do not believe that the Minister will be lost to Parliament, however, because I suspect that he will appear in the other place. He is just the sort of warrior that Labour will need there in order to deal with being in opposition following the election.

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that Plymouth, Devonport is not a Liberal Democrat target seat, so the Minister is quite safe.

Christopher Chope: I do not know how to deal with that. I understand that Christchurch is not a Liberal Democrat target seat either, but just because a seat is not a target, it does not mean that any well-respected Member of Parliament should be complacent. I am sure that the Minister is working just as hard now for his constituents as he has throughout.
	Having said all that, this Bill is a missed opportunity. It could have contained important provisions to strengthen the law against bad driving, and the law against those who kill or maim while driving without a licence, or while disqualified. It could, and should, have addressed the growing problem of motorists driving with illegal drugs in their bodies, and it could, and should, have done more for road safety education and training.
	In its current form, the Bill outlaws equipment that identifies the location of speed cameras. That runs counter to the Government's own argument that speed cameras should be clearly identified and visible, on the basis that prevention of accidents is better than cure. We have no argument with the proposal that equipment that interferes with speed cameras should be outlawed, but we have sought, unsuccessfully, to amend the Bill so that that is the limit of such outlawing. We believe that equipment that identifies speed cameras should remain legal.
	The Bill criminalises those using mobile telephones when their cars are stationary and their engines are switched off by imposing a mandatory fine and endorsement. We support penalties for those who cause danger to themselves or to others through the use of mobile telephones while driving, but the Bill goes unjustifiably further. Why should a person sitting in a five-mile traffic jam not be allowed to make a telephone call? We believe vehemently that bad law brings the whole law-making process into disrepute.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Chope: In a moment.
	The Bill introduces a power to charge motorists for handing in old-style paper licences and to penalise them if they do not comply, despite the Government's saying that they have no present need to recall, or intention of recalling, such licences. It is now my pleasure to give way to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I just want to ask him a very simple question. He knows that laws that are plain and straightforward are those that are acceptable and put into operation. Does he really think that a law could be applied stating that as long as a person could prove that they were sitting in a traffic jam, they could use a mobile phone? This legislation has been introduced because there is a danger involved in such activity, which is not in anybody's interests. Why does he not make that point clear?

Christopher Chope: In Committee—I know that the hon. Lady did not have the chance to follow our proceedings there—we moved an amendment that was not accepted by her Government, and which would have made it a complete defence for somebody to use a mobile phone in a car if it is stationary and the engine is switched off. The hon. Lady will know from the definition of driving in this country's decided legal cases that, under the law, when a car is stationary and the engine is switched off, the driver is still regarded as driving. That is why we believe that incorporating that definition within a new offence of using a mobile phone when driving is too extensive. It should be made a narrower and more specific offence, particularly when it can result in penalty points and, ultimately, perhaps the loss of a licence.
	We believe that proper discretion should be exercised and the best way of ensuring that is having clear law that reflects the intentions of Parliament. I would not be at all surprised if the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who is fair minded, shared my views on this matter. I hope that she would regard the use of a mobile phone by a driver when the car is stationary and the engine is switched off as a perfectly reasonable way of behaving. Unfortunately, the Bill says otherwise.
	The Bill introduces a power to increase flexibility in the penalty points system, but the Government are evasive about their precise intentions. We believe that such an important reform should be built directly into primary legislation rather than left to unamendable regulations.
	The Bill introduces some modest extensions to the system of encouraging driver improvement but, inexplicably, the Government refused to accept our proposal, set out in new clause 2, which would have allowed many more motorists to benefit from reduced penalty points in return for self-improvement of their driving standards.
	The Government have given the impression that they wish to allow common sense, discretion and flexibility in the operation of the fixed penalty system, but today they have rejected our imaginative proposal to introduce discretionary rather than mandatory endorsement for fixed penalty offences to reflect mitigating circumstances. That could have been a significant development, ensuring greater respect by motorists for the fairness of the law. The Bill is a nearly empty vessel, but some of what it contains is unfair to motorists and will be counter-productive to road safety.
	The Government are committed to returning to the subject of penalties for the most serious road traffic offences and are now consulting on Home Office proposals on the outcome of the Halliday review, with a closing date for submissions of 6 May. Legislation will be necessary later this year to reflect the outcome of that review.
	I criticise the Government for having put the Bill into the slow lane during this Session of Parliament, but one silver lining is that it will not reach the statute book before the forecast general election. That will ensure that an incoming Conservative Government will be able to bring forward common sense road safety legislation, which will meet the needs of the travelling public and contribute to a reduction in fatalities on our roads, just as previous Conservative Governments achieved.
	As the Minister conceded in his opening remarks, the Government have failed to reduce the number of fatalities on our roads.

David Jamieson: indicated dissent.

Christopher Chope: The number killed last year was almost identical to the number killed in 1997. I believe that the Government are missing out on the best contribution that any Government could make to road safety—restoring the number of police on our roads to the levels experienced during the last Conservative Government. The present Government have reduced the number of operational traffic police from 9,201 in 1996–97 to 6,276 in 2003–04—a drop of 2,925.
	Interestingly, a Green Flag report on safe driving in 2004 asked motorists:
	"Which of the following would persuade you personally to take more care on the road?"
	It was found that 63 per cent. of respondents prioritised "more visible traffic policing"—the very area where the Government have cut back on activities over the last eight years. We are not alone in believing—I know that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich agrees with me—that we need more visible traffic policing, which would contribute significantly to reducing the number of fatalities on our roads. There has been a consecutive increase in fatalities on rural roads over the past four years: from 1,747 in 1999 to 1,818 in 2002 and 1,891 in 2003, despite all the Government's targets.
	In the interests of road safety, roll on the general election.

John Thurso: I, too, begin by expressing my gratitude to the Minister for the way in which he dealt with the Bill, in Committee especially but also today, on Report. He has tried to answer constructively all the arguments put to him, a number of which I feel that he will, at the very least, think about. That is good of him. In the main, our dealings in Committee were constructive—despite some odd outbursts.
	This is broadly a good Bill. We have been calling for such a road safety measure for about three years, so it would be churlish of me to pick it apart. There are many good things in the Bill, although they are not all set out precisely as I might want. However, the broad thrust of the Bill and what it seeks to do are good.
	There were some missed opportunities. I have alluded to some aspects that might have been dealt with—[Interruption.] I am not used to receiving brief on the hoof. It was clear from our debate in Committee that there is deep unease about the whole question of graduated fixed penalties, not about the concept of graduation and the overall principle that there should be different punishments to fit the varying severity of the crime, but about the particular case, already mentioned by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), of the reduction in points in the 30 to 40 mph range. The Minister said that he has taken on board what was said during our deliberations so I hope that there will be no relaxation on that matter.
	There were some debates on speed limits more generally. I am sorry that we did not have more time in Committee to look at some of the ideas proposed from both sides. For example, we should consider having more 20 mph limits and making a more definite distinction, especially in urban areas, between thoroughfares that are principal roads used by cars and mixed-use thoroughfares where there are pedestrians, cyclists and others, and the car is but one user. The more that I see 20 mph zones in operation, the more I think that, in the appropriate places, they are worth while.
	In one of our debates, we touched on the idea of 20 mph zones around schools. That very weekend I went home to find that a school just outside my drive had fitted a sign that flashed "20 mph" during the 20 or 30 minutes when pupils were leaving and arriving. It was amazing to observe the effect on drivers: they obeyed it.
	Clearly there are things that can be done. We should not just consider lowering speed limits. In principle, there is nothing wrong with slightly increasing speeds on motorways, perhaps to 80 mph as has been suggested, because such roads are engineered for the car. That is the great distinction I wanted to make. I should also like to see the reverse. Where the road is not engineered solely for cars, there should be lower speed limits.
	We also talked about drink-driving, which, sadly, remains a problem and one that is increasing. More people appear to be disregarding the limits. I echo the Minister's comment; I am more concerned about trapping people who have drunk twice the limit than about lowering it to 50 mg.
	We also had a very important debate that was initiated by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), when he raised issues that related to the family of a casualty. I am not sure what that family made of that debate, but it brought out very graphically why we need that new penalty. I say, "Roll on the review", whoever is speaking at the Dispatch Box. If by some complete miracle I find myself there, I will certainly undertake to ensure that the legislation is dealt with with the utmost dispatch.
	A number of issues raised are not in the Bill. For example, we moved some amendments that came from Network Rail that related to level crossings, and I hope that the Department for Transport will continue to consider that issue. I hope that my dear friend the retro-reflective conspicuity, about which we had another go today, will be dealt with, and I was encouraged by the Minister's comments. We can therefore say that, on balance, the Bill will have had a good passage through the House, and that we will be all the better for putting the Bill on the statute book.
	I hope that I have been reasonably fair to the Government, but I come to the one thing that concerns me. Having looked at the business timetabling in another place, I see that the Bill has been given no time and, furthermore, that there are no gaps in the timetable that it could go into, and I do not see any business that is likely to be moved to accommodate it. The possibilities therefore are that, even if the other place manages to squeeze in a Second Reading debate, it will be forced either to take the Bill as it stands without any debate on consideration, which would be a mistake, and pass it in the "wash-up"; or that the Bill will be lost.
	I hope that the Bill is not lost, but equally, it needs to receive the further scrutiny that is required. There are a lot of ifs in this, but if 6 May does have the significance that various people keep according to it and if we find ourselves having to do all this over again, I hope that it will be introduced as rapidly as possible, so that it can be dealt with. Many people in the country trust us—as a group of politicians, not simply as representatives of a party—to make the roads safer. I believe that we agree on far more than we disagree on, so I should like to see this important Bill on the statute book, with a few changes, I hope.

David Kidney: I learned with astonishment today that my youthful and hon. Friend the Minister will not seek re-election at the next general election. He is an excellent Minister in the transport team, and if I am fortunate enough to be elected to the next Parliament, I shall miss his expertise, forcefulness and wit.
	I agree with the Minister that this is a very good Bill. It is more extensive than many people give it credit for, with 51 clauses and six schedules. It demonstrates the Government's commitment to improving road safety. In that respect, it complements a very successful 10-year safety strategy. As he says, we are well ahead of some challenging targets for reducing the number of those killed and seriously injured on our roads. That is particularly impressive with the target relating to children—the toughest target in the strategy.
	Of course, as my hon. Friend also said, we have reached a bit of a plateau in the reduction in fatalities in the past couple of years. There are two main reasons for that; one is the increase in deaths among motor cyclists and the other is the increase in the number of deaths caused by drinking and driving. I welcome the publication of the Government's new national motor cyclists strategy since the completion of the Bill's consideration in Committee, and I look forward to the implementation of that strategy in helping to get the number of deaths among motor cyclists under control, and start reducing it again.
	The Bill contains welcome measures on drinking and driving, but I regret that the Government still do not agree with me that we should reduce the drink-drive limit and thus help to bring down the number of deaths caused by drink-driving each year. Regarding the enforcement of all our road traffic laws, but especially those on drinking and driving, I welcomed the joint statement issued on the day of the Bill's Second Reading by the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Department for Transport and the Home Office on improving the visibility of policing on our roads and reducing the number of deaths and injuries on our roads through better policing.
	During the Committee stage, we had the belated publication of the Home Office consultation following the Halliday report, which covered offences including driving resulting in deaths on our roads. It is right to take time over the consultation, and when we draw up offences as a result of the document. It is important to get the links between the different offences right, to consider what the correct sentences will be, and to decide the evidence that should be admissible for that set of offences.
	I wish to draw attention to the fact that our newly qualified first-time drivers are at the highest risk of being casualties or causing casualties on our roads. Although young new drivers constitute only 10 per cent. of the total number of drivers, they are involved in 29 per cent. of the crashes that result in an injury or fatality. People are most likely to cause death or injury on the road during the first two years after qualification.
	Although it is fair to say that we have improved the standards of instruction and the quality of the driving test in recent years—that has included introducing the new theory test and the more recent hazard perception test—more needs to be done. The Bill attempts to do something more about the quality of instructors and says a little more about the test. Even though this is not addressed in the Bill, I must point out that throughout the entire process of learning and practising for the test and passing it, people do not have to prove that they have the competence to drive at night or on a motorway. We need to give attention to those matters. In fact, there is a good scheme that can be undertaken after passing the test called pass plus. It is successful and allows people to experience those driving conditions. I do not know how much assistance the Department gets from the insurance industry to promote the scheme, but it at least offers reduced premiums to people who have been through it. I think that we could do more to promote the scheme and persuade more new drivers to undertake it, because that could reduce the number of casualties on our roads.
	Adopting central European time in this country is beyond the Bill's remit, but changes to our clock could give us more daylight in the evenings. Research has shown that that could dramatically reduce the numbers of deaths and injuries on our roads, so it is a shame that we do not discuss the contribution that such a change could make to road safety more often.
	The Bill is welcome because its measures could improve road safety in the future. I would like more emphasis to be put on education about casualties and the prevention of them, which explains why I tabled new clause 16 on speed awareness courses. Many of the measures that we have discussed, including my proposals on education and prevention, would not necessarily require primary legislation, so although I commend the Bill to the House, I urge the Department to continue to drive down the number of casualties on our roads using all the powers and levers at its disposal, not just the legislative one.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Higher Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 116.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	Fees and Charges
	That the draft Immigration (Application Fees) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved. —[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Town and Country Planning

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 9th February, be approved. —[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Public Audit

That the draft Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 (Relaxation of Restriction on Disclosure) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Social Security

That the draft Tax Credits Up-rating Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance Up-rating (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance Up-rating Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (SOUTHEND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

David Amess: I address the House tonight with the emotions of sadness and anger. I feel sad about what I have to say because, as the Minister will no doubt recall, I raised Southend's financial settlement in January last year, again on the Adjournment, and I very much regret that many of the points that I made then I will have to repeat this evening. I feel angry because there is a great sense of injustice about the way in which Southend residents believe that they have been treated over the local government financial settlement.
	I want to draw the Minister's attention to two headlines in our local newspapers this week. The headline in the Southend Times is, "Who would want to take on this job?" It is talking not about the job of Prime Minister—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is keen on that job, and I very much hope that he gets it after the general election—but the job of leader of Southend council, for it continues: "Southend Council in search of new leader to take on the unenviable task". The headline in the Yellow Advertiser is, "Council leader resigns over population figures 'debacle'", followed by, "Forced out by row". Having seen the correspondence between the Minister and the present leader of Southend council, I hope that the Minister agrees that it is very sad that Councillor Howard Briggs has decided to resign as leader of the council in May.
	On Valentine's day, the mayor and mayoress of Southend went to No. 10 Downing street, leading an all-party delegation comprising a wide variety of local groups. We handed in this scroll, which said:
	"Save our Southend
	Please don't R. I. P. the heart out of Southend
	Survival of vital services to our Borough and its residents which we as the Local Authority are expected to deliver through their public mandate
	Survival of our town as the cultural hub of Thames Gateway South Essex as prescribed by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
	Survival of our businesses and the continued regeneration of the town both now and for its future generations as stated by Ministers of the Crown
	Survival and retention of jobs along with improved conditions for our local government employees as per Central Government policy
	We ask you & your Ministers to ensure that the accuracy of the ONS 2001 Census figures are checked immediately and that when the formula on which the local government finance settlement is based is reviewed later this year, the impact on Southend on Sea's finances is thoroughly examined and we are lifted from the grant floor, thereby enabling us to give the kiss of life to the town and thus the survival of its services."
	Many organisations that represent the local community, including the Southend Association of Voluntary Services, Friends of the Palace Theatre, the Southend Carers Association, Growing Together, Trust Links and Southend Youth Council, to name a few, supported the scroll.
	Since I have been Member of Parliament for Southend, West, the council has not been solely led by the Conservative party. From 1994 until 2000, it was run by the Liberal and Labour groups. I stress to the Under-Secretary that I am not responsible for running Southend council—no Member of Parliament is responsible for running a local authority. The councillors and the leaders do not phone the local Member and ask what they should do about a specific issue—that is not the job of a Member of Parliament. However, whatever the political complexion of the local authority, if the council feels hard done by, it is the Member of Parliament's job to raise the problems.
	I get the impression that there has been a good relationship between the Conservative council and the Government. Indeed, the Conservative-led council would say that it had done everything that it could to support the various Government initiatives. However, the council now feels badly let down because of the census. I want to share with the Under-Secretary a few extracts of Councillor Howard Briggs's budget speech.
	Councillor Howard Briggs was born in the town and is well known, but I do not think that he could be described as a professional politician. He was a popular and successful local dentist. Eventually, local people thought that he had a civic contribution to make and thus he became a councillor and genuinely believed in what he and others wanted to achieve for the town.
	Councillor Howard Briggs spoke about cuts in his budget speech and said:
	"In addition to such services as subsidies to theatres, community centres and bus routes lost this year we will next year be losing massive slices of the non-mandatory social care provided to our disadvantaged residents of all ages from the very old to the very young, further cultural facilities, much of the beneficial environment in which we live and much of our ability to respond to the needs and concerns not only of our residents but of the multiplicity of inspectorates which find ever increasing ways to help us spend money but bring nothing in the way of income to help us achieve our objectives."
	He continues:
	"When I took over the leadership of this Council two years ago I knew that I was undertaking an enormous challenge . . . I believed that we could control Southend's destiny and make it a better place to live . . . two years ago I had not fully appreciated the disaster to come through the lack of revenue funding, mainly as a result of the census which had taken place in 2001 but the results of which were not published until 2003. This reduced our population from 176,000 in the 1991 census to 160,000 . . . We have not lost 10 per cent. of our population in ten years."
	It is crazy for the Government to accept that Southend has lost 10 per cent. of its population in 10 years.
	Councillor Briggs goes on:
	"Our elderly are still living to ever greater ages".
	The Under-Secretary will recall that, when I took part in a debate a few weeks ago, I said that my constituency was No. 1 out of the 659 for people aged between 100 and 112. Councillor Briggs states:
	"our electoral register has increased, we have 178,000 patients on our doctors lists, our schools are almost full to capacity, our housing waiting lists longer than ever . . . we are trying to run a town of about 178,000 people with the money for 160,000 and the census has lost us an estimated £11—£12 million in those two years."
	On 14 February, Councillor Briggs and others met the registrar of the Office for National Statistics to try to resolve the issues. The ONS believed that the primary care trust and housing figures were insufficiently robust to be a factor in the calculation, although it accepted that there were disturbing variations in our figures that were not to be found anywhere else. The basis of its argument was that the 2001 census was accurate, and that the 1991 census and all the mid-year estimates since then must have been wrong. It was obviously unaware of the disastrous effects that its conclusions had had on the income stream in Southend and admitted that it might have handled the problem in a different manner had it known of them. It would have been possible for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to accept the figures and apply them to Southend over a period of years.
	Councillor Briggs went on to say that he had adopted
	"a policy of keeping expenditure down to SSA (Standard Spending Assessment). This is the formula which the Labour government considers we should be spending to maintain our services when it does its calculations nationally and is the factor which controls the level of our Revenue Support Grant. This was followed up last year by its replacement known as FSS (Formula Spending Share) and we have kept to that."
	Councillor Briggs ended his budget speech by saying:
	"I have found this entire process extremely stressful . . . it is affecting my health. I did not join this Council or become its leader to supervise the destruction of our community . . . The warnings that I gave last year have come to fruition and I have now produced two budgets both of which are heading in the same downhill direction . . . I will not be standing for re-election as Leader of this Council".
	I want to end with some thoughts for the Minister. People in Southend feel an enormous sense of injustice. Local residents feel unjustly treated in terms of the health service, education, law enforcement and the way in which asylum and immigration issues are handled. Most of all, they feel unjustly treated in terms of the financial settlement. I know that the Minister has heard many of these points before because I have initiated a number of Adjournment debates over the years, with mixed success. I fully understand the limits faced by Ministers, who have to take advice, in these circumstances, but I am asking the Minister tonight to hold out his hand to help Southend. We feel as though we have been kicked in the teeth. We had some terrible publicity recently from a BBC1 television programme entitled "Drunk and Dangerous", which did not show any of the participants in a good light.
	Southend is full of hard-working, honest, genuine people who just want to make the most of their opportunities, whatever the Government of the day are. To say that we have a shortfall of this huge number of people—nearly 20,000—is just crazy. Every time I conduct a surgery, a number of asylum seekers come to see me with their problems and I do my very best to help them. They always show me letters telling them that they should not remain in the country, but they now have families. Of course, they never took part in the census, yet not one person was prosecuted in our town. How can we have 178,000 people registered for health care, when we are told that we have only 160,000 people in Southend? Over the past few weeks, I have tabled all sorts of questions that Ministers have answered honourably. All those questions indicate that Southend has many more than 160,000 people.
	I want to end with this request. I ask the Minister to consider again how those census figures were handled and, if it is not too late, to try to reconsider the basis on which the financial settlement was made. I say genuinely to the Minister that I am prepared to ask all the residents of Southend to stay in their properties on one day and, if he has the time, perhaps he and I will go around all the properties and do a count. There is no way that the population has shrunk in Southend. Some of our big houses have been divided into flats. We have many more people living in Southend now than in 1991.
	I am not here tonight to argue politics with the Minister. I am merely asking for justice in Southend and I ask him and his colleagues to do everything that they can to re-examine the census figures and make sure that justice is done for local residents.

Phil Hope: Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing this debate. It gives me another good opportunity to clarify the Government's view on what he has said this evening and similar points that he raised in the local government settlement debate in the House on 2 February. He, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), who is also present in the Chamber this evening, and Councillor Howard Briggs, the leader of Southend council, to whom the hon. Member for Southend, West referred, have engaged in lengthy correspondence with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about Southend's budget position. They will all know our responses.
	Let us establish some facts. Southend has received generous grant settlements from this Government. It will receive a 4 per cent. grant increase from Government in 2005–06. This is the third year in a row in which Southend has had an above-inflation increase. Southend has also received specific grants for particular purposes—next year estimated to be some £26,627 million—on top of the 4 per cent. basic grant increase. Moreover, additional funds through innovations such as e-government, from which all councils have benefited, will also benefit Southend. Southend cannot possibly reconcile the 4 per cent. grant increase, nearly £27 million of specific grants and other grants that it receives, with claims that it has been underfunded.
	Southend keeps raising its council tax by more than the rate of inflation. I understand that it has set a 5.25 per cent. council tax increase for 2005–06. I am sure that it has not gone unnoticed among the council tax payers of Southend that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy estimates an average council tax increase for England of 4 per cent. next year. Therefore, Southend is setting a council tax increase of 5.25 per cent., whereas the average council tax increase for the rest of the country is 4 per cent. Many Southend residents might want to ask why their council tax increases are consistently above the average when the council has consistently had above-inflation grant increases in the past and will do so in future.
	The council tax increase of 5.25 per cent. next year comes on top of increases of 6.8 per cent. in this financial year, when the average increase across the country was 5.9 per cent. and—these figures are extraordinary—an increase of 15.7 per cent. in 2003–04 when the average was 12.9 per cent. Do the hon. Members for Southend, West and for Rochford and Southend, East believe that council tax increases of 15.7 per cent., 6.8 per cent. and 5.25 per cent., which are all above the national average for each year, are justified? We have detected a pattern. Southend keeps setting council tax increases that are not only well above inflation, but well above the average increase in the country.
	The hon. Gentleman should note that Southend benefits from the floor system that the Government have introduced to the local government grant formula. He mentioned the scroll presented at Downing street in which Southend asked to be lifted from the grant floor. In fact, the floor protects Southend's grant to the tune of some £3 million. If the Government had not imposed a floor on the increases that councils are receiving, Southend would be £3 million less well off next year. As a result of our calculation, Southend will receive not only what is due to it but £3 million more, because we wanted to ensure that no council received an increase amounting to less than the inflation rate.
	We have given Southend generous grant settlements and it has benefited from the floor system. But it has set high council tax increases, and if that proves anything it is that Southend has no case for its claim that it is poorly funded. Consistently good settlements from the Government ensure that all properly run authorities can provide a good service without making excessive demands on the council tax payer.
	The hon. Gentleman said at the end of his speech that he did not want to make this into a debate on party politics, but he began by saying that he looked forward to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) taking on the job of Prime Minister following the general election, whenever that comes. I think that, as a member of the Conservative party, he should be a bit more honest with his electorate about the impact on the people on Southend were his party ever to gain power. The Conservatives have pledged to make a £35 billion-a-year cut in public spending, which includes a cash freeze on the money that local authorities would receive—not the 5.4 per cent. increase promised by the Government, but the equivalent of a 4 per cent. cut in next year's budget. The impact on council tax, on services and on all the individuals and organisations that signed the scroll would be devastating.
	The hon. Gentleman has regularly come to the House demanding more money for his council, and as he rightly said that is an entirely legitimate and appropriate role for a constituency Member. He must, however, ask himself whether his request for more money bears examination, given that his party—which he hopes will become the Government—would cut his authority's grants significantly.
	The hon. Gentleman made a specific point about the population estimates. He said that the estimate for Southend by the Office for National Statistics was inaccurate. When calculating formula grant applications, the Government use the best and most up-to-date data available on a consistent basis, across all authorities. In the case of population, they are the 2003 mid-year estimates produced by the ONS. The calculation involved in population estimates is a matter for the ONS, and queries about their derivation and accuracy should be raised directly with it.
	We have always been clear about the fact that we would issue an amending report for the 2003–04 and 2004–05 settlements if the ONS revised the population estimates. It is only fair that authorities receive the correct amount of grant relative to the updated population estimates. Indeed, we consulted on options for the amending reports last summer. Revised population estimates were published by the ONS in September 2004 following the completion of its 2001 census-based local authority population studies. Southend is one of the authorities that the ONS investigated as part of that work. After consideration of all the analysis, the ONS concluded that no adjustment should be made for Southend.
	Amending reports must be made by the end of the financial year following the year of the report. As hon. Members will know, the 2003–04 amending report has now been made. We have decided to postpone the issuing of the amending report for 2004–05 until next year to ensure that all possible revisions to the data used in the 2004–05 settlement are included.
	Using new census data in the funding formula is not a simple task. It is technically incorrect to update the census data, for example, in the police formula. In other areas, the changes needed to incorporate the 2001 census data would break the formula freeze and could cause large changes to the distribution of formula spending share.
	We will look to incorporate 2001 census data into the funding formula once the formula freeze has ended. That formula freeze is designed to give stability over a three- year period. We are in the final year of that freeze. We will look at the formula, now that the three-year period is coming to an end, when we come to the next three-year period, but to say that the population statistics are inaccurate is a matter, as I say, for the ONS. However, we have used the most up-to-date statistics that are available to us.
	The hon. Gentleman read at length from the speech of Councillor Howard Briggs, who is intending to resign. Indeed, he wrote to me on 8 December telling me that Southend was considering setting a council tax increase not of 5.8 per cent. but of 9 per cent., and he asked for an assurance that his authority would not be capped.
	Would the hon. Gentleman have supported a 9 per cent. increase in council tax for next year, given that there is an above-inflation increase of 4 per cent. in the grant, plus all the specific grants I have mentioned, which Southend council is to receive? I suspect that he would not support that, but I do not know. Running a large council is a difficult job that many would shirk from given the demands. However, given the extra funding that the Government have provided for local government, it is a task that can be undertaken with purpose and confidence.
	I have mentioned the budget increase of 5.25 per cent. that is planned by the council for next year. I was asked by Councillor Briggs whether we would consider not capping the council tax increase. No decisions on capping have been taken, but we have made it clear that we expect to see an average council tax increase of less than 5 per cent. and will take even tougher capping action next year if that proves necessary. The Deputy Prime Minister will take decisions on capping after authorities have set their budgets for 2005–06.
	I have talked about the statistics and the extra money available. I have talked about how we do not want to see council tax increases being consistently above the national average or, indeed, above inflation, as we have seen in Southend. There is one other big important agenda, which will free resources for local government to deploy on the front line: our proposals on greater efficiency in delivering services in local government.
	We recognise that local government is efficient in many ways and want to support existing efforts to develop and to apply best practice across all local authorities. We believe that there is scope for achieving efficiency gains of at least 2.5 per cent. per annum in local government to deliver efficiencies of at least £6.45 billion by 2007–08. Higher gains may be attainable. Importantly, those efficiency savings are retained by the authority. That is 7.5 per cent. over three years in Southend, half of which will be productivity improvements, half of which we expect to be cashable—to be spent on other services or, indeed, if the council chooses, to keep the council tax down.
	The efficiency agenda is important for councils such as Southend. It is an opportunity for local authorities to free up as much resource as possible to redirect that resource to front-line services or to keep council tax low. Crucially, efficiency is not about cutting services. It has to generate genuine savings in the ways that the council operates to free up resources for use in the ways I have described. The regional centres of excellence will play an important role in supporting local authorities to identify and to deliver efficiency gains.
	I understand why the hon. Gentleman comes back repeatedly to the House to plead on behalf of his authority. As the local Member of Parliament, he is more than entitled to do so, but I emphasise to him and to his constituents that they have had very good grant increases over the previous two years and next year, that successive council tax increases will not be tolerated and that, were his party to get into power, he would have to explain to his constituents why they would receive a cash freeze to their grant settlement in future years.
	The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at twenty-five minutes to Eight o'clock.